I honestly don't mind any company charging for cosmetics.
It's only when you do Pay2Win that I get annoyed. Someone wants to blow money on style thats their choice.. (What am I saying, In Eve Online I probably have several hundred dollars of real $ in clothes for my Spaceship Barbie, and skins for her ships lol)
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is not charging for whatever.
It's saying "I won't do it" and then do it...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah but it wouldn't really be one of the first devs to break their promises, right?
And i don't care, doesn't mean i allow them to fuck consumers over, because i wouldn't pay for such crates, period, if you buy them then you would support them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not saying i don't care they break their promise either (but i haven't played the game, nor really feel an immediate need), i just saying, that it happens, alot. And if you already expect such things before hand (as most thing in life) it makes less disappointments.
Will you stop playing this game all together now because of it?
Comment has been collapsed.
In the couple of months the game has been out there has been a significant improvement in optimization.
Also gotta realize that different tasks require different people. Their lead programmer is probably not designing skins for new microtransactions while their graphic artists and designer probably be of much help when optimizing code and fixing server issues.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not caring that they break their promise is not okay.
I can understand the opinion that breaking promises is not okay, but you're telling other people they're not allowed to not care? Come back from that cliff a bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't even play PUBG, Yet at least, But i agree with you there. The microtransactions alone being cosmetics only is perfectly fine imo. You don't go back on your word as a dev tho. Ruins your reputation and makes no one ever trust you. I was going to buy PUBG this month but after this i feel like i need to wait to make sure that he doesn't back step on his word again about "Cosmetic Only" Microtransactions. Last thing i want to do is support another p2w bs game. So at least for now, I'm avoiding buying this game tell more comes of this fiasco.
Comment has been collapsed.
Funny you say reputation. We are talking about a person who started this whole online battle royal thing by creating a mod, which he abandoned, then doing work on a separate game when H1Z1 split, only to disappear from there as well (it is still in beta, mind you) so he can create the same thing for the third time, but with a larger income share.
Yet you can see many people finding all the prettiest reasons and excuses on why what he did was the "right" thing to do.
So him going back on a promise is not exactly a thing that should surprise anyone.
By the way, I am surprised not many people mentioned how the game remained in Early Access and they "suddenly" pushed back the set-in-stone-pinky-promise-this-is-not-another-endless-beta release date a few days before it was about to hit, and now it is just some vague "maybe sometime in 2017". It is just amusing how this crowd manages to eat the same shit up every single time and still find reasons on why they did it. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Didn't the playerbase pretty much spam the shit out of them to add it? Also 2 free ones and 1 for sale during an event i think? Read about it 1-2 days ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
Everything is 100% optional, even breathing. What's your point?
Comment has been collapsed.
Shame they backtracked on the $1000 jeans. You could have funded development for years.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, sadly they have enough attention to start "monetizing" now. Just look at ARK, it's not like they care about all the angry customers when there are so many paying for the DLC :P
Comment has been collapsed.
They still sold more than 5 millions copy already...
I guess the sales are starting to slow down, so they try to milk a bit the already customer.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, because, as you can see in this thread, people will come up with excuses to either explain it or to explain not caring about it. If CS:GO went and turned free texture mods into a multi-billion dollar business with people being happy about paying money for a single .DDS file one could create in Gimp, then fleecing the same sheep with a different shear won't change the public opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even if the intention was to never implement this. If a game or concept is successful and/or popular enough they will be acquired by someone that will implement these kinds of things.
Comment has been collapsed.
if you don't care about micro trasactions for cosmetic reason only you haven't thought about how it can affect games in other ways. most noticeably performance, without the ability for people to turn off extra skins/meshes that this introduces people with pcs that ran the game fine before will see a gradual decline in performance or/and stutter as more content is added, look at what happened to rust.
Comment has been collapsed.
You could at least provide the full truth of the matter. Yes, horse out the barn, slippery slope and all that, but the microtransactions are for a short time to fund an event, not line the dev's pockets.
Proceeds from the sale of the keys to open the Gamescom Invitational Crate will be used:
- To provide funds needed to organize the event
- To provide a prize pool for the invitational winners
- To support a selection of charities
Once Gamescom is complete, on August 27th, the Gamescom Invitational Crate will be no longer available and removed from the game. We will then return to the free-to-open system.
Edit:
I finally checked that FAQ bit and saw:
Are there going to be microtransactions?
Yes, but only for purely cosmetic items and only after Early Access.
The store still lists the game as early access, so that last clause is broken, that's fair. The rest still stands, apparently.
Comment has been collapsed.
The "full truth" is right there in the links.
Yes, I clicked through to read it, but you conveniently avoided addressing the relevant details. Which details are persuading myself and others towards a milder conclusion than yours. What you choose to include and exclude colors the narrative you're pushing. Me too.
Who are you kidding.
No one. I have no agenda, nor a combative attitude at the moment. So I won't try to explain what might possibly motivate them to fund the event rather than pay it out of pocket, nor address whether this is a broken promise, nor push my opinion on anyone who disagrees. I'll stop here, and just let people make up their minds with some additional relevant info in the thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
After reading everything, I agree with you. I think it's still in line with their original intent.
Cosmetics are cosmetics. Even though they're selling buttloads of cosmetics, as long as the game's properly maintained e.g Dota 2, I don't care. :))
Comment has been collapsed.
What will happen of the cosmetics stuff you bought ?
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess people keep it? Like the yearly Dota majors or whatever, where people buy stuff and fund most of the pricepool with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
So the cosmetics code will stay in the game. And the micro transactions which come with it too. Even if they disable it, eventually it will come back later again and again. I don't think we can say that the microtransactions are for a short time
Comment has been collapsed.
Read the article please, it will be a little clearer.
They start 3 chests - 1 IRL money, 2 ingame currency one, and openly stated that it's for testing for post-release.
The IRL-money one will be gone after the event, only the free cases will stay.
Microtransactions will be gone after the event (also someone really could explain to me why skin microtransactions are as horrible as pay-to-win boosters and such, and why is half of the community triggered by the world DLC when literally every post-release content is a downloadable content = a DLC)
Comment has been collapsed.
Because people claim "ALL THIS STUFF USED TO BE FREE! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" and forget that 99% of games never got any content post release. Hell, most games didn't even get support post release, and any bug fixing that got done had to be done by fans.
DLC and cosmetic microtransactions are not a bad thing, unfortunately they get lumped in with pay to win microtransactions or targeted by people who think "I bought the game, therefore I should get everything associated with it forever for free".
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, i still think the code won't be thrown away now it's made, but thanks for the explanation about the other way to get the cosmetics.
Oh, I don't have any problem with skin cosmetics, and I don't think OP has a problem either. The issue OP is trying to relate is that the devs said they won't be micro transactions, and finally they put some.
I don't have problem with DLC either, it the same that "Expension pack" like the sims did in the 2000, it exist seems for ever XD
Comment has been collapsed.
The code won't be thrown away, but there was a (semi-hidden) focus on the topic : the devs promised no microtransaction while in EA (this current contest-paying case-thing is quite dodgy in this regard) - but they never said that microt. - like skins - won't be in the game after 1,0. I also could have worded better: they promised no MT before release, they are doing the timed one with no direct profit for them, and as things stand that will be it - until release But we'll see. I personally don't own the game neither really believe what these news say until it's time and they proved it... maybe that's why I'm not so upset as some people. While I don't like the genre, at this point it seems they almost instantly overtook the Battle Royale scene, and by actually providing quality. It would be sad if they would trip themselves on the banana peel.
Comment has been collapsed.
You say "fund an event" like that somehow makes it better. In my opinion it makes it worse.
That event is purely marketing for them and that's not why people gave them money through Early Access. They did that so that the development of the game would have a chance to be finished... not fund the game's marketing when it's not even done.
Not only did they break their promise about no microtransactions. They did so because of a business decision, one that doesn't even directly effect the development of the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a fair opinion, but I'm confused about your statements regarding the purpose of the money.
That event is purely marketing for them and that's not why people gave them money through Early Access. They did that so that the development of the game would have a chance to be finished...
There are two sources of money: EA sales, and the microtransaction. Which are you saying is for finishing the game? I'd contend (between the two, at least) that's the EA sales, and not the event-exclusive item named after and clearly announced for the event. (I'd dispute the idea that either pot has to be purely for finishing the game. Heck, they could deem it "finished" today. The only reasons they don't are to chase more customers (marketing, product improvement), and to keep goodwill with existing customers in order to sell them more stuff later.)
Comment has been collapsed.
My point was that EA is supposed to be used for getting a game made at all. The spirit of EA is sort of like Kickstarter, where a product wouldn't be possible without the help of the consumers directly.
People didn't jump and give their money for an unfinished game for them to spend it on marketing events like this. Sure, you could argue that the crate money is somehow separate but I can't see it that way. It's both sold in the game and has an impact on the game (cosmetic or not). This is why they made that promise to begin with after all - it's something the vast majority of people would rather not have at all.
Yes, they could release it today... but if they did that, it would be the kill the game. They aren't holding it back that just for marketing purposes or to polish the game. It's simply not finished at the moment with glaring issues still present. Major things such as bad performance both client-side/server-side or a main menu is clearly a placeholder. It's also got numerous bugs and large features missing (even simple stuff you'd expect such as being able to climb over things).
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve is funding their price money for different leagues of their own (like in dota 2) mostly trough micro transactions too.
Would Valve have the need for that?
Of course not.
Will they do it regardless of that?
Yes, as people buy that stuff.
So, in this case of this game i would say it is a lot more logical to make such a thing to keep money for actually developing the game (something valve did not do for a long time) instead of fundig it completly out of the own pocket.
And hey, no one is forced to buy any Micro DLC in any game, so if no one buys (and everyone knows it is not the developers fault for using that, it is the fault of people who use that stuff) it, it would not be used...
Comment has been collapsed.
Having events for the community to fund the prize money is literally nothing new. It's common with every single game with big tournaments. Nothing wrong with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a bit murky here but after reading the FAQ and news post you linked I don't think they are violating the spirit in which the FAQ answer was given. I read that as saying yes we will be doing cosmetic MTX but we will finish the game before milking it unlike other devs have in the past. So as long as the proceeds are distributed as they say I don't see a problem.
Honestly I'm more concerned by the preceedence set by the footwear having differing sound levels, but not having played the game I don't know how much if at all stealth is an issue. Would they consider a ghillie suit as cosmetic?
Comment has been collapsed.
"The problem is not the cosmetics but the going back on their word."
Comment has been collapsed.
what's wrong with cosmetics?
if someone can afford a $400 skin and be happy playing with it, so be it. if i ever played a game like csgo i would do it with the base skins or just use the cheapest ones, to each its own.
Comment has been collapsed.
unless they don't add p2w stuff or items like boosters, i don't see a problem. it's more content for everyone, and for some people it's better to pay for skins than unlock them by playing and wasting time. =3
Comment has been collapsed.
so this thread was another classic "i'm right, read my opinion"?
Comment has been collapsed.
You must admit that
Whoever is going to response with "It's only cosmetics, why do you care?" -> You are the reason Dev's can fuck consumers over.
doesn't really invite or appreciate opposing opinions. You set the tone right in OP.
Comment has been collapsed.
did they promise it? where is the statement that says "i promise to never make micro transactions" ?
for me they said it, they thought about it, they changed their minds.
i dont think it's like they sweard on the life of their mother that they wont do it.
i dont see a problem i changing the mind if you own a gamecompany or if you are developing a game. thats like you would get upset if they take shoes out of the game.
it's early access and early access is a process. in a process things can change, deal with it.
i get your point, they did not what they said they will do, but look at games like TF2 for example. without microtransactions it wouldn't be there anymore. sometimes there are reasons to "break the word"...
Comment has been collapsed.
Mully, cosmetics stuff has nothing wrong. Many games have them and who want to spend $400 in a shinny and bright weapon or whatever is perfectly fine againts who is ok with the base item. The main problem is the model this creates for devs nowadays. Example: Overkill (PAYDAY 2 devs) said many many many times the game never would have microtransactions. What happened after two years? Bam! Microtransactions. They avoided any question related to their interviews and previous words and press releases about no microtransactions. This divided the community and the negative reviews did a lot of harm. It was a lot that they ended removing it. In my opinion, when devs acts contrary to their words, we shouldn't accept it, because this could lead to more devs following their example because "others did it and nothing happened". It would be different if in the interviews, press releases, etc, they say something like "maybe in the future, in some model players would like, but for the moment no because we are working in this and that feature"
Comment has been collapsed.
payday 2 didn't just add skins, they sold items that changed gameplay.
Comment has been collapsed.
We talked about this on Steam but just for the public - because lying won't ruin a game. Imbalance and pay to win can and likely will.
Dishonest dev and fucked up game is way worse than dishonest dev who otherwise makes no harm to the gameplay.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, that's right, making it worse than this scenario. But it's the same path. They say "no" today, and everyday, until one day they realize all the money they could win and change their word to "yes".
Comment has been collapsed.
or maybe they do it because people demanded skins to be released during EA, and there's no way it would hurt gameplay. at the same time they get extra income to keep servers running and releasing updates. ┐(´ー｀)┌
Comment has been collapsed.
That's something interesting. People who are into the game should know more or investigate about it. If the case is like you said, all is fine. I'm not really into multiplayers nowadays because the crappy internet we have here, but the background of those decisions have a huge weight in how to take them.
Comment has been collapsed.
As stated above, the microtransactions all go to a) Gamescom event funding, b) The winner of the Gamescom event, and c) Charity. None of it goes to the dev, and after the Gamescom event the MTX crates will be removed from store.
I don't see this at all as being a greedy developer going back on their word, they're doing an event with a prize pool and allowing the playerbase to contribute to the prize pool and get bonuses while doing so. I've been part of a lot of communities that asked to be able to contribute to prize pools of big events because it increases exposure for the game, and rewards the players that are dedicating themselves to the game.
Why would people care about that? Well, first, increased exposure means more funding overall going into the game, which means a longer lifespan for the game. In a multiplayer only title, when interest falls past a certain point, then the devs have to cut their losses and move on or go broke supporting servers for a shrinking player base. Second, the players dedicated enough to get or win a spot in this game tend to also be streamers and community contributors, so they both increase exposure of the game and help other players get better.
TL,DR: None of the mictrotransactions are going to the dev, and none of them change the gameplay. The OP is overreacting and providing an incredibly slanted narrative to try to drum up outrage.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, Korean MMO company... Which means they know entirely how to nickel and dime it in the future...
Comment has been collapsed.
Not surprised at all. This game is an obvious cash cow that hopes to get the same pie as CS:GO has. You can also start counting the days before it goes off Steam and will use its own standalone client, like LoL did years ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
FAQ stating that there will be no microtransactions in Early Access.
And indeed there will be no microtransactions in Early Access. Did he say before that there will be no microtransactions ever?
Comment has been collapsed.
There is at least a promise (we know how these work, we'll see in october)
http://www.pcgamer.com/playerunknowns-battlegrounds-guaranteed-to-leave-early-access-by-october/
Comment has been collapsed.
I only skimmed the news before, but now saw that there's going to be a limited time crate available to purchase, so I understand the issue. I don't think it's a deal breaker, especially if the game is nearing release, but I can understand why it can annoy users.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dev. makes exception to their own rule, in order to be able to test stuff they'll be implementing later anyway.
Meh. This rates pretty low on the drama scale. Only reason why this would kick up a fuss is because it's tied to a runaway success.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is "Early Access" today.... pay money for an unfinished game..with lots of bugs...don*t complain cause its just EA..and still they have time to implement micro-transaction stuff and maybe DLCs soon...just like this other scam called ARK.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is nothing wrong with cosmetic microtransactions. Anything other than that, we riot.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is. The fact that payers are so cool with paying for something that has been completely free for over two decades shows the level of brainwashing in the gaming community in general. The only bigger scam in the IT sector is charging fees for SMS (text messages).
Comment has been collapsed.
Please remind me which multiplayer only games during those two decades, with dev run servers, allowed for cosmetic changes? Because most of the ones I remember allowing that either had to be private servers or used services like GameSpy. Also, most of them shut down their servers in <5 years.
OTOH, most of the multiplayer only games with cosmetic microtransactions that I can think of have lasted >5 years, probably because the microtransactions offset the server costs and allow them to at least keep the servers up if not continue to develop content for the game.
If you don't like cosmetic mictrotransactions, then don't buy them. Other people want to support the games they enjoy and help keep the servers running, and it's quite arrogant of you to call them "brainwashed" or claim that the sales that support the game they enjoy are "a scam".
Comment has been collapsed.
Quake III. Unreal Tournament games (heck, Epic released update packs for UT2k4 for free). Counter-Strike games. Including Global Offensive.
The entire skin craze was started when Valve decided to shutdown free community CS skins and implemented a paid system for them. Similarly how Bethesda tried to monetise Skyrim mods, only Skyrim's player base was not full of brain dead idiots and they pushed back instead of revering Valve as gods and happily paying money to continue using the skins they had for free before.
Comment has been collapsed.
Quake 3 didn't run on developer servers.
Unreal Tournament I'll give you.
Counter-Strike and CS:GO I'll give you.
So, that's 7ish games over 2 decades that allowed cosmetics on dev run servers and didn't shut down within 5 years? And the devs of those games had other games they sold during that time that allowed them to cover the server costs?
I'm trying to point out that for multiplayer only titles, there are ongoing costs and if the dev isn't going to just pull the plug in a few years on it, there needs to be some way for them to offset those costs. That's why MMOs started out with monthly subscription fees.
As long as the microtransactions are purely cosmetic, please explain to me how it hurts the community or gaming as a whole to provide a way to support a game that the players like instead of allowing it to shut down after a few years?
And please don't use terms like "brain dead idiots". Ad hominems will just get you ignored.
Comment has been collapsed.
all games published after 1999 are trash.
fact™ 💜👌
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol. Thanks, Mully. Getting over a stomach bug today and I needed that laugh.
Comment has been collapsed.
It adds monetary real-life value to something that is functionally worthless. This is not a physical investment like buying a painting or jewellery; this is throwing money on something that exists only in a virtual state and has no way of being used to. It is teaching to pay money for nothing, and often to kids. It shows that it is okay to ask money for something you get nothing out of and encourages the video game industry to continue on a road where the focus is more on creating money hooks than gameplay content.
So, explain to me, how does it NOT hurt the community even in the mid-term run?
Also, look through the first three pages of the Steam community main forum, then tell me if I have no grounds to call CSGO players brain dead idiots.
Comment has been collapsed.
By that logic, going to the movies, going to the theatre or spending money on anything that isn't an investment or critical to survival is teaching to pay money for nothing. Hell, if the internet were to go down permanently, your Steam library would disappear and all the money you spent on that would be functionally worthless.
You're painting an exaggerated view of things and stating "It teaches kids to pay money for nothing". If people got nothing out of a game, they wouldn't be putting more money into it. It's not like a casino where they have the carrot of "Maybe I could win more money" dangling in front of them. People get entertainment and enjoyment from games. Games have been proven to teach multitasking, strategic thinking, and lower stress. That's not nothing.
Are there devs who have taken the wrong lessons from microtransactions and used them poorly or even hostilely? Hell, yes! And those devs should be held to account for it and people shouldn't buy further products from them unless they prove they've learned their lesson.
But cosmetic microtransactions aren't game changers, they are purely optional, and they allow the devs to pay for server costs and further employment for their art teams without having to abandon the game and switch to developing a new one. They're not selling new guns or better armor or anything that affects the gameplay itself.
If people want to put money into the game to do that and support the game - or in this case an event, a prize pool for the winner of said event, and charity - then that's their choice. Why do you feel this need to insult and berate people for putting a different value on their entertainment than you do?
I will give you the point about the CSGO Steam community, though. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
But cosmetic microtransactions aren't game changers, they are purely optional, and they allow the devs to pay for server costs and further employment for their art teams without having to abandon the game and switch to developing a new one. They're not selling new guns or better armor or anything that affects the gameplay itself.
But that IS the issue: they are keeping a game alive through cosmetics instead of developing a new one. Rockstar used to release a new game almost every year before they implemented microtransactions in GTA V and they did not even have any upcoming games announced for the fifth year now. This is not slowing down innovation to make up for costs. This is killing innovation altogether.
Microtransactions in one damn game alone are enough to keep a company of 1000+ full-time employees all over the world, including some of the most expensive countries, paid with their monthly salary for the fifth year now, even when they are not even doing any actual work.
This is crazy. This is worse than the dotcom craze, because it is a system that is not held together by the sheer belief but the never-ending desire of players to keep it alive, but for what? To keep playing the same one game till the end for their lives without ever seeing a new one? Not even the hardcore Quake 1/Quake Live players are so damn stuck in their bubble.
Comment has been collapsed.
If people want to play the same game for years - which, actually a lot of people still do, check out how many speedrunners there are for 20+ year old games like the Final Fantasy series, DK series, Zelda series or Mario series - how does that harm you?
Your argument seems to be that microtransactions are somehow killing innovation in the gaming industry, and yet I see tons of games - good games, not card trash - being released on PCs every month. Most of them are single player, and almost none have microtransactions. If it were killing innovation in multiplayer only games, I'd expect to see fewer multiplayer only games coming out and yet, to the best of my recollection, I've seen more multiplayer only games released in the past 5 years that microtransactions became a thing than in my 18 years as a gamer before then.
I think Rockstar is a shitty company for the way they've handled the GTA Online thing, but at the same time, there are obviously millions of people willing to pay to let them do that. Caveat emptor. As soon as they stop raking in the cash from shark cards, Rockstar will bail on GTA Online and make GTA Online 2 to see if they can make lightning strike twice. I doubt it, considering how well that has not worked for other MMOs, but you never know.
I understand what you're saying, and you're right when it comes to microtransactions that affect gameplay. Those are wrong and force anyone who wants to be competitive to pay for them or be permanently a second class player. If the game is popular enough, they also bring in enough money to convince the devs to not work on anything else because the risk is greater than just continuing to work on the same game and gating content via microtransactions.
I disagree when it comes to purely cosmetic microtransactions, because there is no incentive to buy them other than to support the game and to get a certain look for your character. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, and while it can prolong the life of a game, it typically doesn't create a large enough revenue stream to keep the dev from working on further titles.
I could be wrong, and the next few years will tell, but I think the fact that there are still good single and multiplayer games coming out means that the games industry as a whole isn't in any danger from microtransactions. Especially since a lot of new and upcoming game devs in the USA have either been taught or influenced by James Portnow, who is extremely hostile to gameplay affecting microtransactions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree when it comes to purely cosmetic microtransactions, because there is no incentive to buy them other than to support the game and to get a certain look for your character.
Sadly, that argument was invalidated the moment the first CSGO skins betting site went online. Cosmetics there evolved into an underlying economy full of scandals, fraud, money laundering, theft, and other assorted activities not regulated at all neither by Valve nor authorities (the latter don't even understand what is happening yet, as usual).
And if not Valve, then some other company would have implemented this system. After all, it is literally free money, founded on something that used to be just "free" before someone had the idea to monetise it. (Just like my SMS example above.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, that is one example, not an industry wide pandemic. And with all the ill will that scandal brought Valve, I doubt that any other company is going to open themselves up to that kind of PR disaster. YMMV.
I see cosmetic microtransactions as a way to support the game and the developer. You see them as one step closer to an industry devoid of innovation and full of scandals, fraud, money laundering, theft, and other assorted activities. As with all speculation, time will tell which it ends up being.
Comment has been collapsed.
Free for two decades? Bruh, try and give one example, one, of a game released 20 years ago that released cosmetics constantly for free in a constant matter. I'll wait.
Cosmetics ain't fucking free to make, and no, games never used to deliver you constant updates of cosmetics for free.
Comment has been collapsed.
I did not say continuously and you can see examples posted above on MP focused shooters.
But you know what? I am game. Here is you example: UnReal World. Released in 1992, latest update made in March 2017. No DLCs, no expansions, no monthly fees, no microtransactions, and every content update was free.
Comment has been collapsed.
No cosmetics, and not a multiplayer game either. What a terrible example.
Not to mention that Unreal World has been developed off and on as a hobbyist project. Good luck getting any studis that actually need to pay their employees to magically pay the employes for 25 years.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cosmetics were added, since quite a few art assets were included over the past quarter decade. Don't see multiplayer in the original request. Or are we playing some kindergarten "but… but…" game here, where I need to comply rules added on the fly? I am a tad old for that by now, sorry to say.
(The fact that I was referring the past 20 years as an era since texture packs were a thing since Doom 1 let people create their own WADs, and not specifically for a singular game, is a totally other matter. But I fear it may lead to some other semantics-nitpicking contest to comply some other set of as-of-yet arbitrary rules.)
Additionally, I would still like to point out that the thing that started this craze was that Valve monetised the CS:GO skins which were, before that, free community content. The entire thing started with an email to server hosters to disable skin support, after which they rolled out their version of it, with price tags. With the original sales pitch being "let content creators profit from their work!" If it sounds incredibly familiar from the Skyrim paid mod fiasco, then there is a reason for that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I want a Steam badge that says "Scourge of Gaming Industry" for not really caring either way.
I'll even pay a micro-transaction fee for it. :3
Comment has been collapsed.
Ditto though I think its enough for it to be awarded for pre-ordering a $60/€60 game ( and has unlimited levels and each pre-order increases its level by 1)
Comment has been collapsed.
Nevermind I read that completely wrong.
As far as presenting bad dev practices go.
The steam tag system was used like that for a bit, pointing out 30FPS games and bad practices, until Steam made it shit again.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
That's fairly new, they didn't use to be able to give negative recommendations.
I don't know of a particular one that points out shitty practices.
Comment has been collapsed.
http://store.steampowered.com/curator/10451722-Anti-Consumer-Practice-Report/
I don't know about negative reviews, they mark everything as informational and then point out what the dev did. Things range from using a stolen asset in the game logo to the dev threatening to blacklist reviewers if they didn't recommend one of their games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah. Before curators could only recommend games. The informational and negative options came later.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like tacos.
I like cheese, too.
And saying random things.
Comment has been collapsed.
I misunderstood what you meant.
I thought you were talking about giving shitty devs a scourge of the industry badge, sorry had just woken up.
Comment has been collapsed.
whew So I haven't completely lost my mind.
Have a cup of coffee. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I completely agree.
The developers should have made up their minds beforehand and stick with the decision.
Since they are already getting and will keep getting a lot of income from the game, this move just smells fishy, even though they're only selling "cosmetics".
I'm all for supporting developers when they need funding, but going back on your word is not a good way to gain your players' trust, especially in cases where you will gain a lot of potential profit out of it.
I don't own the game and now I don't plan on getting it anymore.
I know that in business people are seen only as numbers and treated like mindless tools, but I hate seeing that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am wondering if it is connected to this thread. Not reading all comment, just a quick scan did not show anything suspension worthy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like yesterday a guy who made a topic asking about who was an admin in a game, and then got perm banned.
Hope we can still be somewhat critical. :} But op has a private profile, so maybe the reason was, that he is hiding something. Shrug.
Comment has been collapsed.
Jbondguy said maybe because of alt accounts (it would take alot to get you perm banned), i don't know, nothing really seemed to be said wrong in that thread. I learned to stay out of these things.
But does seem a bit odd, it happening to 2 people, after having opened a thread, in 2 days.
Comment has been collapsed.
Brianfarnet is right, think you are confusing it with someone else, made no giveaways.
Just another case happened though. https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/6wT0i/where-do-people-get-these-saints-row-2s
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't they just make transactions so large you can't call them micro anymore and everyone will be happy.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only problem is: MICRO TRANSACTIONS...
The game is in alpha... the copies won't be sold forever.... and to develop the game in future they need money, to pay salary and so on. So the real problem is that people look only at problem in their head not at the real one that exist for real. My opinion. Sorry if i'm not clear or rude.
Comment has been collapsed.
This game has earned more money through sales and after Valve fees than what Activision pays for the entire first Destiny trilogy. It earned more money than what the last two GTA games cost together. The "they need money for development" excuse is so weak that you can admit that even you don't believe it any more.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, they don't need any more money.
They should have enough money to develop at least 3 more games with the sales of this one alone.
Comment has been collapsed.
I new this was going to happen, one of the reasons why I haven't bought the game yet. I don't really care, it just takes the pure fun out of it when everyone is going to be obsessing over skins/cosmetics.
Comment has been collapsed.
And the dev also gave himself the power to ban anyone who team kills. Which is stupid.
You can't implement a rule (which no one who has bought the game had agreed to) and use it to take away their access to the game without even offering refunds for people whoever doesn't want to follow the new guidelines. Or, even better, if you don't want team killing patch the fucking game and disable it.
Comment has been collapsed.
This game have been the top selling game on steam for a while, just imagine the temptation to bring in microtransaction :D I am not agreeing with them, but I can see why they would do it
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.