Jump to content

Possible Microtransactions in Ghost of Tsushima


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, PhyrxianLibrarin said:

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.

Exactly. Games nowadays are designed for micro transactions. They are not a 'bonus' you could pay for, but are the 'normal' way to progress at a correct rate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bosstristan said:

Exactly. Games nowadays are designed for micro transactions. They are not a 'bonus' you could pay for, but are the 'normal' way to progress at a correct rate.

 

 

 

I don't think you and I are saying the same thing.

 

Take AC Odyssey, or most/all of the modern Assassin's Creed games. Once you have the game, you can spend additional real world money to buy in-game currency, and then use that in-game currency to buy equipment that you can't otherwise get in the game. That's a microtransaction, sure. But you don't have to buy the premium equipment to progress, and the equipment is only marginally better than what you'd get through normal play. You can completely 100% the game and do all the multiplayer (if there is any) without it. It's purely a value-add for people who are willing to pay extra money to skip the grind, but it's optional. It's a bonus.

 

Compare that to the many online shooters where you can pay real money for equipment that is functionally superior to what you can get through normal play. That effectively locks you out of the "endgame" unless you pay additional money. I don't know of any single-player games where this is the case, it seems to be almost exclusively a multiplayer phenomenon.

 

A game that supports microtransactions is not the same as a game that requires microtransactions. You can make the case that "all content in the game should be included with the purchase price, without microtransactions", and I get that. Does that also mean companies should stop making DLC? Isn't paid DLC just a really large microtransaction?

Edited by PhyrxianLibrarin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhyrxianLibrarin said:

Isn't paid DLC just a really large microtransaction?

 

Then that makes it... a normal transaction.

Anyway, regarding "merely cosmetic" content, as usual, Jim Sterling explains it best:
 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zenpai said:

 

Then that makes it... a normal transaction.
 

 

That's kind of my whole point, though. No one (well, not many people) suggests DLC is bad, even though it's an optional in-game purchase you make with real money. So if there are different kinds of optional content you can get with real money, on top of the core game, why are some of them OK and some aren't?

Edited by PhyrxianLibrarin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, PhyrxianLibrarin said:

 

That's kind of my whole point, though. No one (well, not many people) suggests DLC is bad, even though it's an optional in-game purchase you make with real money. So if there are different kinds of optional content you can get with real money, on top of the core game, why are some of them OK and some aren't?

 

DLC is a bigger transaction but it generally expands your experience and takes nothing out.

 

A game having microtransactions is a sign that it's been made harder and/or grindier for the sake of selling you the solution to those problems.

Edited by Zenpai
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PhyrxianLibrarin said:

Take AC Odyssey, or most/all of the modern Assassin's Creed games. Once you have the game, you can spend additional real world money to buy in-game currency, and then use that in-game currency to buy equipment that you can't otherwise get in the game. That's a microtransaction, sure. But you don't have to buy the premium equipment to progress, and the equipment is only marginally better than what you'd get through normal play. You can completely 100% the game and do all the multiplayer (if there is any) without it. It's purely a value-add for people who are willing to pay extra money to skip the grind, but it's optional. It's a bonus.

 

They've been doing this since around Black Flag. Ubisoft throws in a form of currency in-game that you can pay for actual money, then you use that currency to buy stuff that helps you spot collectibles. Initially this was a multiplayer thing, you buy new skins and character packs for online gameplay, generally cosmetics.

 

The moment microtransactions tread the territory of "you must have this to get an upgrade to your sword", I start to complain. Middle Earth: Shadow of War and Star Wars Battlefront II were met to such criticism to where the developers had to make changes. People were sending their retail copies of Battlefront II back to the stores because of the microtransaction/lootbox crap.

 

WB and EA are guilty. Sony hasn't done anything to suggest or implement microtransactions you use to speed up progress in any of their first party exclusives... and it should stay that way.

 

Paying extra money to skip the grind started with mobile games, particularly Free-to-Play games. Now they've spilled onto AAA games, even offering in-game advertisements on the game menus to convince you to pay money to buy these microtransactions. This was not the case last generation. Now it's common practice, which the publishers can thank themselves for because it is a successful business model that has gotten gullible gamers to pay more money for a product that they initially paid $60 on, plus $20 - 40 for the Season Pass.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To read, this game could include microtransactions is (again) a reason for me to wait until there's a "definitive edition" or GOTY, which than later will include cosmetics, DLCs etc. but for a lower price.

 

And btw. with games coming out at the end of a console era: I would bet on it, that we will see an upraded (or even including "definitive edition") version for PS5 (same goes btw. for The Last Of Us 2). I am done with buying  day one releases because even the collector's editions aren't a main reason anymore. Soundtracks just are more often included as digital version.

 

This doesn't mean that I don't have hopes in this game. But with my patience is growing more and more within the years on waiting to buy a game.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Zenpai said:

DLC is a bigger transaction but it generally expands your experience and takes nothing out.

 

A game having microtransactions is a sign that it's been made harder and/or for the sake of selling you the solution.

 

If that's the dividing line (If it adds to the "core game" it's DLC, if it unlocks a restriction on the "core game" it's a microtransaction), they both still fall under "in-game optional purchases", and there's no way to know what Ghost of Tsushima may have until it's released/announced. It sure sounds like a lot of people are assuming it's the second for... I dunno, reasons? What's the last single-player game that had MTs like you describe here? Shadow of War? That went so badly I can't imagine SP would try it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, PhyrxianLibrarin said:

That went so badly I can't imagine SP would try it again.

 

They never did. Kind of wish they would start work on a new inFamous but I suppose they moved on past that.

 

Microtransactions that Shadow of War had were putting people with money at too much an advantage over those who didn't have as much. I played the game not too long ago on my alt to test things out and it's much better now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two sides of the equation.  Half of it is on the consumer buying trivial skins/cosmetics.  Deluxe editions are always an abomination and folks still pay $10-20 extra dollars for a couple of skins/cosmetics.  Why?  Who knows.  

 

If consumers stop buying this crap (at least at this rate), they would not offer it.  
 

Games take more $$ than ever to make.  Yet the launch price of games have not increased for many years.  And the prices are reduced pretty rapidly over a short period of time.
 

They have to make the revenue somehow so if they don’t offer this shite, then gaming prices rise to $80 or so at launch (and there are fewer sales afterwards) to make up for it.  I prefer the current model where those with no self-control pay for some meaningless cosmetic aesthetic and let me get the game cheaper.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, djb5f said:

There are two sides of the equation.  Half of it is on the consumer buying trivial skins/cosmetics.  Deluxe editions are always an abomination and folks still pay $10-20 extra dollars for a couple of skins/cosmetics.  Why?  Who knows.  

 

If consumers stop buying this crap (at least at this rate), they would not offer it.  
 

Games take more $$ than ever to make.  Yet the launch price of games have not increased for many years.  And the prices are reduced pretty rapidly over a short period of time.
 

They have to make the revenue somehow so if they don’t offer this shite, then gaming prices rise to $80 or so at launch (and there are fewer sales afterwards) to make up for it.  I prefer the current model where those with no self-control pay for some meaningless cosmetic aesthetic and let me get the game cheaper.

 

I'm guessing you meant digital deluxe editions? All those skins/cosmetics should be included in the regular edition (add it as an unlockable even)

 

Best part of physical is the steelbook. And the one for this game looks great. Not that bad for $10 more. $20 is pushing it for sure.

 

As for the in game purchases that was shown on the Europe store, it doesn't seem to be there for the U.S one. Weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ghost said:

 

I'm guessing you meant digital deluxe editions? All those skins/cosmetics should be included in the regular edition (add it as an unlockable even)

 

Best part of physical is the steelbook. And the one for this game looks great. Not that bad for $10 more. $20 is pushing it for sure.

 

As for the in game purchases that was shown on the Europe store, it doesn't seem to be there for the U.S one. Weird.


Yes, referring to the digital deluxe.  I think SW Battlefront’s was $20 extra for a couple of skins and a blaster unlocked early!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, djb5f said:


Yes, referring to the digital deluxe.  I think SW Battlefront’s was $20 extra for a couple of skins and a blaster unlocked early!

 

Damn, EA know ppl are gonna buy that one ?

Edited by Ghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

apparently it's a rock solid open world sekiro type of game. if thats the case I'll be waiting for ps5 anyway for the 60 fps. cosmetics can be earned by gameplay in game, you might find it will be a pay to unlock semi pay to win model I imagine sony are desperate.

Edited by MatThaRiPP3R84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, djb5f said:


Yes, referring to the digital deluxe.  I think SW Battlefront’s was $20 extra for a couple of skins and a blaster unlocked early!

The deluxe version of Tsushima just comes with an artbook, soundtrack, behind the scenes commentary, a skin set and ability point. It's basically just a few piddling extras for $10 more.

9 hours ago, Zenpai said:

 

Then that makes it... a normal transaction.

Anyway, regarding "merely cosmetic" content, as usual, Jim Sterling explains it best:
 

 

This is the same doofus who intentionally misreported the Activision layoff situation. I seriously wonder how people still take this man seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microtransactions suck but I honestly don't care if the game just has those microtransactions in the form of skins or cosmetic items. However, if they directly affect the game - or rather, if the game has been designed in a way that will incentivise the purchase of those microtransactions, then that's when I start to grab my pitchfork like everyone else.

 

I just think that when it comes to microtransactions, people need to actually stop for a moment and think about whether or not the kind of microtransactions a game has directly impacts it. 

Edited by PostGameBlues
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...