Possible Microtransactions in Ghost of Tsushima

[steel6burgh]

28 minutes ago, Arcesius said:

The screenshot isn't working, so I dunno what it featured. That being said, the PSN page of, for example, Sekiro: Shadow's Die Twice, stated the exact same thing (In-game purchases optional) and it ended up not having any such options at all. 

 

So as long as there is no specific info on the topic, I don't think there is any ground for discussion / drama. 

i mean it's a single player game so anything you would buy would be optional cosmetic stuff i'm assuming.  Some people who want and buy that stuff keep my price down because I could care less about the cosmetic look of a virtual character in a game.  So be it.

[Litha]

4 hours ago, majob said:

I heard the call and now I serve

 

Don't want them? Don't buy them. People whining about things they don't have to do is a mystery of the universe

I'll stop complaining when it ceases to be a problem.

 

Me: David's shitting on my lawn again.

Others: It's fine, just don't invite him inside, and be grateful he's not force-feeding fecal matter down your throat.

Not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates my point.

Edited May 22, 2020 by SpaghettiGrabsy

[bosstristan]

MT are the worst things that happened to videogames.

[Undead Wolf]

Like a couple of others have pointed out, the "In-game purchases optional" text has appeared on the pages for games that have no DLC or microtransactions to speak of, so I wouldn't look much into this. A lot of the store descriptions have very little thought put into them. I expect the extras included in the Digital Deluxe Edition will be the closest thing to purchasable in-game items we'll see in this game. I hope so anyway.

[majob]

1 hour ago, SpaghettiGrabsy said:

I'll stop complaining when it ceases to be a problem.

 

Me: David's shitting on my lawn again.

Others: It's fine, just don't invite him inside, and be grateful he's not force-feeding fecal matter down your throat.

Not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates my point.

You're right it's a poor analogy. Someone trespassing on your property without your consent is a crime and you're trying to compare it to something you have no obligation or compulsion to participate in and its status as a "problem" is entirely on you, microtransactions are a billion dollar business, obviously most don't agree with you.

 

Not to mention this entire thread is one person trying to stir up shit with the most flimsy evidence they can find.

Edited May 22, 2020 by majob

[Litha]

3 minutes ago, majob said:

You're right it's a poor analogy. Someone trespassing on your property without your consent is a crime and you're trying to compare it to something you have no obligation or compulsion to participate in and its status as a "problem" is entirely on you, microtransactions are a billion dollar business, obviously most don't agree with you.

You don't seem to have understood the analogy. Someone shitting on my lawn doesn't directly affect me the same way as someone shitting on my lap and I don't have to get upset about it, but that doesn't make it okay or reasonable. It is not a literal comparison, but an emotional one. I didn't think I'd need to explain that, but here we are. I've said all I need to, I don't want to restate myself again. Goodbye.

[Dry_Plumbus]

20 minutes ago, majob said:

You're right it's a poor analogy. Someone trespassing on your property without your consent is a crime and you're trying to compare it to something you have no obligation or compulsion to participate in and its status as a "problem" is entirely on you, microtransactions are a billion dollar business, obviously most don't agree with you.

 

Not to mention this entire thread is one person trying to stir up shit with the most flimsy evidence they can find.

 

 

Just because it's a billion dollar business does not mean it's "okay" or should be accepted.

 

Trafficking women and young girls is big business in parts of the world, does that mean because people out there are supporting that business it means we should allow it?

 

There is no reason to defend micro transactions unless you have 1. a vested interest in it (shareholder, employee etc)  2. are someone who enjoys wasting money because you don't have impulse control or have too much money and boredom issues, or you just don't know better (i.e you are being exploited and you don't even comprehend it).

 

And honestly this multi billion dollar micro transaction industry DOES exist the same way the sex trade does, by exploiting people. So, yeah defend it all you want. but it's a shit business practice and people will and should continue to speak out against it.

[reiner-]

Noooooooooooo

[AJ_-_808]

There's something seriously wrong with you people comparing optional micro transactions to people shitting on lawns and to sex trafficking 

Edited May 22, 2020 by AJ_-_808

[reiner-]

1 minute ago, AJ_-_808 said:

There's something seriously wrong with you people comparing optional micro transactions to people shutting on lawns and to sex trafficking 

 

What do you mean "you people"? ?

[BushidoCypher]

I doubt it'll be anything to cause concern. It isn't the route SP usually goes.

[majob]

39 minutes ago, SpaghettiGrabsy said:

You don't seem to have understood the analogy. Someone shitting on my lawn doesn't directly affect me the same way as someone shitting on my lap and I don't have to get upset about it, but that doesn't make it okay or reasonable. It is not a literal comparison, but an emotional one. I didn't think I'd need to explain that, but here we are. I've said all I need to, I don't want to restate myself again. Goodbye.

It's still a poor analogy. They both consist of someone committing a crime against you and you're trying to compare it with something completely voluntary with no force against you in any such way. You're not going to evoke the "emotional" response you want from someone with an actual lick of common sense with such poor examples.

[majob]

27 minutes ago, Jables_The_Hutt said:

 

 

Just because it's a billion dollar business does not mean it's "okay" or should be accepted.

 

Trafficking women and young girls is big business in parts of the world, does that mean because people out there are supporting that business it means we should allow it?

 

There is no reason to defend micro transactions unless you have 1. a vested interest in it (shareholder, employee etc)  2. are someone who enjoys wasting money because you don't have impulse control or have too much money and boredom issues, or you just don't know better (i.e you are being exploited and you don't even comprehend it).

 

And honestly this multi billion dollar micro transaction industry DOES exist the same way the sex trade does, by exploiting people. So, yeah defend it all you want. but it's a shit business practice and people will and should continue to speak out against it.

First: That is a poor comparison. You're comparing people being FORCED in a criminal situation with a voluntary business transaction.

 

Second: Don't mistake your personal opinions on the matter as fact. I simply find that some people are finding a piece of logic that's easy to come by "Don't want it? Don't buy it", extremely hard to grasp. Nor should you think that you know what a person's interests are when you clearly don't unless you have the ability to read minds.

 

Third: The "exploitation" angle is a hard sell when you have to make the voluntary decision to buy into what you're getting. 

 

And by all means "speak out"because clearly things you're not forced to buy are a crime against humanity.

[Dry_Plumbus]

2 hours ago, majob said:

First: That is a poor comparison. You're comparing people being FORCED in a criminal situation with a voluntary business transaction.

 

Second: Don't mistake your personal opinions on the matter as fact. I simply find that some people are finding a piece of logic that's easy to come by "Don't want it? Don't buy it", extremely hard to grasp. Nor should you think that you know what a person's interests are when you clearly don't unless you have the ability to read minds.

 

Third: The "exploitation" angle is a hard sell when you have to make the voluntary decision to buy into what you're getting. 

 

And by all means "speak out"because clearly things you're not forced to buy are a crime against humanity.

 

You should take your own advice but it's clearly lost on you.

[MidnightDragon]

Didn't see this mentioned on the US store. As people have pointed out, they have said this for games that didn't have any, so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. Still getting it day 1.

[abhinandhan22]

There's no chance in hell a sony first party game has microtransactions. At worst, it would be a few random skins(even this i heavily doubt). As fr mtx in general, as long as a game isn't padded by design to make the user more likely to buy the mtx i dont really care. Thats the only form of mtx in a SP game that would personally affect me. 

 

Side note: Game looks meh to me but still picking it up day 1 because Sucker Punch makes fun games even if they aren't exactly ground breaking or innovative. Smoke particle effects stood out in second son though

Edited May 22, 2020 by abhinandhan22

[TJ_Solo]

6 hours ago, bosstristan said:

MT are the worst things that happened to videogames.

 

Arcades were pretty popular back in the day.

 

[Darling Baphomet]

2 hours ago, abhinandhan22 said:

There's no chance in hell a sony first party game has microtransactions. At worst, it would be a few random skins(even this i heavily doubt). As fr mtx in general, as long as a game isn't padded by design to make the user more likely to buy the mtx i dont really care. Thats the only form of mtx in a SP game that would personally affect me. 

 

I mean... The Last of Us' multiplayer had insane microtransactions. People just didn't care because most people played it as a story game.

 

Either way, if these microtransactions don't take away from the main game, or if the main game isn't made unnecessarily grindy to necessitate their purchase - who cares? It's an option. A monetized option, yes, but if it has no bearing on the quality of the actual game besides "I don't like the idea that for profit companies treat their video games like a business", then outrage sounds like a personal problem more than anything else.

[abhinandhan22]

1 hour ago, Darling Baphomet said:

 

I mean... The Last of Us' multiplayer had insane microtransactions. People just didn't care because most people played it as a story game.

 

Either way, if these microtransactions don't take away from the main game, or if the main game isn't made unnecessarily grindy to necessitate their purchase - who cares? It's an option. A monetized option, yes, but if it has no bearing on the quality of the actual game besides "I don't like the idea that for profit companies treat their video games like a business", then outrage sounds like a personal problem more than anything else.

Yeah my bad I should have stated first party SP only game. 

[majob]

6 hours ago, NekoRave said:

What ever happened to in game unlockables.

 

A skin you earn in game is always worth more than paying for it.

 

Like when I got the halo helmet in Halo 3 for doing vidmaster challenges it woukd be worth way more than hey pay $5 for this helmet.

 

Yeah moneys always tempting and all but i just genuinely miss games that do this.

 

Seems like its just a lost art now :/

Lost art? plenty of games still have unlockable skins, they just also happen to have skins you can just outright buy now as well. Assassin's Creed Odyssey has several unlockable skins along with skins you can just buy from the storefront for example. Lost art it is not.

[Lord_Bane999]

It's probably related to the skins as some already mentioned the whole microtransaction and lootbox dilemmas has made Devs having to start putting some of these on their packaging. This seems like an issue but it's not, the ESRB chooses what descriptions can go on their packaging in this case they overgeneralize. The ESRB treats any paid content after a games release as "microtransactions" it doesn't matter what it is. The only time you should be worried about potentially harmful microtransactions is if it includes a mention about "randomized items" then this means the game will most likely include lootboxes or some sort of paid cash mall with random items offered daily or limited times. The article below by CBR goes into this.

 

https://www.cbr.com/esrb-loot-box-warning-matters/

Also I'm with this HuntingFever on the whole is it or is it not a microtransactions, buy definition anything that is a virtual good paid for by cash tangible or intangible is a microtransaction. But in this sense an extra costume to wear isn't microtransaction in the sense that OP is making it out to be as something harmful and destructive like we've seen with other games in the last two years. Plus this is Sucker Punch they go pretty light even on cosmetic dlc for their games perferring to deal with dlc that adds maybe interesting new missions or stories. I doubt their gonna go like full EA in one game.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Lord_Bane999

[AJ_Radio]

Sure.

 

Last generation people whined about DLC just by it's purpose. Nowadays people seem to welcome DLC with open arms. Nobody seems to think it is a problem anymore.

 

This generation we had two games (Middle Earth: Shadow of War & Star Wars Battlefront II) that tried to utilize microtransactions/lootboxes as a method of Pay to Win. The developers since then have changed both games to make it more fair for people who wanted a more even playing field. The lootbox system as we knew it in Shadow of War was taken out. Battlefront II was met with such hatred that the developers were forced to make changes.

 

I haven't done much research on Ghosts of Tsushima. Should this be more so the kind of optional crap that Ubisoft shoves into their games, I'm okay with it. Even though technically, with real money, you can purchase stuff from Ubisoft to help you find collectibles faster, which many people seem to forget when they play an Assassin's Creed game.

 

I don't want another Middle Earth: Shadow of War fiasco going on.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Spaz

[majob]

1 hour ago, NekoRave said:

I'm saying the vast majority of games do this very seldomly is that the case. Its no longer the norm. 

They still exist as before but people are so used to seeing skins on sale that they don't pick up on the skins you can naturally unlock in a game. There's typically fewer skins you can just unlock compared to ones you can buy for money of course and they're almost always not as elaborate but they're still there.

[PhyrxianLibrarin]

There's a big difference between "buy this costume for purely cosmetic purposes" and "buy this sword upgrade to be functionally more powerful", and especially between those and "you will be too weak to complete the game unless you buy that sword upgrade." People (especially here) tend to group them all together as equally bad, but one of those _adds_ options for the player, and the other _removes_ options, and that's the egregious type.

[Conor]

This would absolutely suck, no excuse for this crap in offline single-player games. I doubt it is true though, I would be very surprised; unless I am mistaken, every single-player Sony exclusive of the last few years is devoid of them so I don't see why they would put them in to the PS4's last hurrah like that.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Stan Lee