careful, now even the slightest mention of the <redacted> word will get you suspended using imaginary rules
Comment has been collapsed.
You're attacking my personal health and safety!
runs for safe space
(Did I do it right?)
In all seriousness, best not to mention the P-word.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why not simply not play it ? It's gonna play like every other Ubisoft game / Assassins Creed anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
So if you like LOTR a lot and you wanna play the game buy it.
Or go to the next electronic store and steal it. At least that requires skill and involves risk.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can't really steal something that isn't on the shop floor, but even when disks where left in the cases there was very little skill involved.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't claim it is hard but at least there is still risk involved.
Comment has been collapsed.
As far as I know most retail copies that activate over Steam have a Steam key in it but I have to admit I haven't bought retail since Just Cause 2.
I'm not salty I'm merely annoyed at the excuses people make up to justify piracy... If you say you're gonna pirate the game because you wanna play it instantly at release but don't wanna pay for it, I'm not gonna say anything.
However if you claim you're gonna pirate a game because of Microtransactions or Denuvo or whatever, that's the point when I get annoyed.
Comment has been collapsed.
it was tongue-in-cheek. i'm an idiot, which basically means that i'm so behind i play games from 1990-2005 and complain that Arcanum doesn't run on Win10.
I'm not completely sure about the idiot part (maybe related to salty ?) but I'm in a very similar situation that's why I never understood the need for piracy. For me it's similar to the hype that comes up everytime a new movie or game is announced: "Every game and movie so far is shit but this one is going to be different, this one is going to be the Bee's Knees."
Until it gets released and people realize it's just more of the same.
i dont really understand your articulation on the second point tho. why do you get annoyed if someone pirates because they are against MT or DRM?
Because I'm positive that for ~ 95% of the people using that argument it's a strawman. They would have pirated the game anyway but some decision by the dev makes them think that they have the "right" to do so and even act righteous about it.
When I dislike somethink a dev does related to a certain game a lot I simply don't play that game. Easy as that. It's not like there are not a gazillion other games out there.
Comment has been collapsed.
pirating the game allows them to get whatever they wanted to get out of the game, then get out, meaning that they can avoid(or subconsciously avoid) supporting MTs in AAA mostly single player games.
I guess that's something we can agree on. I personally would rather not play it or tackle my backlog until they "beg me" to take their game for 2,5β¬ (like with Shadow of Mordor) but I choose which laws I personally follow and which ones I ignore and so can they.
Comment has been collapsed.
Remember that there are plenty of people who can't afford buying legal games (3rd world countries) i was one of them, until i discovered Steam Sales and the hundreds of GA (my 1st game was Sniper Elite V2 it was free back in 2014 i think)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I remember when Sniper V2 was free. I was just getting back into Steam and Sniper was probably the first Badge I crafted.
It's sad that the used game market doesn't exist on PC anymore because it can save so much money.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because some people would like to play it, and use the "omg the devs" arguements to fabricate a reason to pirate it while still having the "I'm supporting the industry" flag. They aren't even bothered by the changes as they still want (and likely will) play the game - but free, because hurr-durr Robin Hood, taking from the rich or something :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, I'll just never understand it. I don't even find the time to play the games I already have (and I buy like 1 - 2 big titles every year) so I don't understand how people find the time to play games they can't even afford.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have a little different take on it: why would I play something that's free ( Like I found a PC version of No One Lives Forever that works properly) if I have games that I paid money for, wanted them and yet they are unplayed.
But we end up at the same point :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Not going to lie I've pirated back when I was broke and when I had my laptop (This was before Steam refunds and I didn't want to spend $30 on a game to find out I couldn't run it.) Now there has only been 2 games I've pirated and the main reason for it being is there is NO place I can buy the game legitimately. I cannot find a copy of Onimusha 3 on PC for sale (that isn't on some shady key site) and the other one is ROTK IX and it's for the same reason. I saw KT bringing the old Romance of the Three Kingdoms (ROTK) games on to Steam, but none of them are in English so that kind of kills my hope and until they release an English version of ROTK IX I'll be using my PC to emulate it on PS2.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually the "abondonware" issue has been discussed seperately in this thread and I'm actually a bit torn on that one.
In fact if you still own the PS2 game (but f.e. not a working console anymore) I probably wouldn't even consider it piracy because as far as I know emulating is fair game as long as you own the ROM.
I remember I played Genma Onimusha on the original XBox and loved it. Kind of lost sight of the franchise after that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I had the PS2 copy of it until it was broken a few weeks ago by my nephew. I haven't had a PS2 in over 10 years, but yeah.
I only played Onimusha 3 on PS2 (never played the first two) and I loved it and when I started using Steam 2 years ago I was shocked to find out it had a PC port, but then devastated when I found out it wasn't available for sale. I also found the original Prey was no longer available to it, but I did go through a shady key site to obtain a key of it (for $5) and if it wasn't for the fact that people want $100 for Onimusha 3 I would buy the key or steamgift for it so that I could legally own the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I snagged the original Prey from the site that shall not be named as well but there are some removed games like Mafia or Stubbs the Zombie where the prices are absolutely insane. Guess I have to add Onimusha 3 to that list.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah prices are ridiculous. I tried looking up the first two GTA games and had either no or terrible luck. I got really lucky and found Fable 3 for sale on Amazon for only $20 which is still a bit pricy, but better than most people that sell games that are no longer on Steam (It's a Steam Key too btw.)
I found a few other removed games.
Walking Dead Survival Instinct ($50)
Family Guy: Back to the Multiverse ($50)
Jericho ($5)
Section 8 ($5)
There are probably others, but that's all I cared to look for atm.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's mentality problem for some peeps?
Like my friend bought "more buffed" version of Kindle to be able to pirate ebooks (so she doesn't have to buy paper books, and she's too lazy to go to the library).
She has steam account (I created it myself few years back) but she still pirate dirty cheap games (seriously, games she plays are kind of Farmin Simulator or smth), bc she'd have to pay for it. God, she plays in Sims and didn't bother to create Origin account when they were given for free.
But yeah, there are also people that won't buy it "Bc preorders!, cut content in DLC!, game was full of bugs! and it's shitty!" but will pirate it. Because devs doesn't deserve their money, but they want to beat this game immediately after launch either way. I just wait 1 - 2 years till price will drop to my "range" and buy it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't looked into it closely because it's not my kind of game but as far as I know the original Farming Simulator barely gets good discounts because it sells like sliced bread in Germany. Seriously... germans are completly nuts for "Job Simulation" games :)
The ones we know from Groupees 50 cent bundles and stuff like that are supposedly very bad copies.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can buy 2015 version for 6 - 7β¬ (she plays 2013 version). And she's able to pay so much for few chocolate bars, she eats a ton of them.
So it'd be enough to not eat sweets for 2 weeks to get game in a legal way. But why buy something you can steal so easily? She'd be punished for stealing chocolate. But for stealing games? Not really >_<
Comment has been collapsed.
Makes sense. I didn't think about earlier versions ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Got that with a Zoo game. Dunno the name again.
Haven't seen it for more than 20% on the Steam store. And I've been eying it for 3 YEARS. Meanwhile number 3 was bundled already so I got that one.
Hello, 20%? What the?
Comment has been collapsed.
I can partially understand Kindle thingy cause that's what I do from time to time as well. Around 10% of books on my Kindle are pirated ones, but that's because these books were issued in Poland with not enough copies, sold out and can now be obtained on second hand market only for few times their original price. Things like Dan Simmons "Hyperion" (Rebis issued new copies after 3 years so price dropped, but 1-2 years ago you'd have to pay 100+ PLN for it, while cover price was 35), Peter Watts "Blindsight" (same case as above, up to year ago it costed over 100-150PLN), JRR Tolkien "Letters" (this one is still costing 125-150 PLN with cover price of 40) and "Hurin's Children" (atm 80-100PLN, twice cover price) and so on and on. There are loads of books like that - and if publishered screwed up not issuing enough copies I will not feel morally wrong for pirating a book I could not buy legally from official sources.
Gaming comparison would be pirating removed games. If someone wants to play game which is no longer available on Steam nor any other platform I won't blame them for pirating the game instead of buying hundreds dollars gift copy from trader.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't like to have material stuff, so I borrowed all my books from libraries (btw Hyperion is REALLY good. I liked whole series. And I'm still super curious how ChyΕΌwar looks like according to Simmons, not some fan art).
As for games they're sometimes called abandonware. (Btw they sold recently original, new copy of NES Super Mario Bros for 30k dollars. Crazy xD)
Comment has been collapsed.
problem with libraries is that you would often have to wait months for popular book to become available (that is if your library has said book at all). If book sold all copies on the market you can pretty much say it was quite popular - that means there will probably be queues for said book in library as well. Also I used to think I can read only material books, but in reality both have their pros and cons. Real book have it's great smell etc, but sometimes - especially with really thick books it becomes unhandy to read and to travel with. Kindle is much better for travelling, to reading at night etc. So both have pros and cons ;) Another problem of mine is that my flat is super small (30 m2), I only have 2 bookstands and they are full for years already - I often need to sell my older books to make spot for new ones, so buying books digitally helps up managing it quite a bit ;) Only real downside for me is that I cannot take ebook, no matter if pirated of bought one, to meeting with author to get a dedication ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
Bah, I hate people using the 'abandonware' excuse. It is piracy, pure and simple, doesn't matter if a game is old or the original company no longer exists.
Any time someone acts like there is nothing wrong and just claims a game is 'abandonware', I just want to go
Comment has been collapsed.
sorry, but the same way "anytime I see someone claiming you should buy 500$ game from 2nd hand market I just want to go "shut the fuck up". same level of argumentation.
There is ofc nothing wrong with someone willing to pay these 500$ for no longer available game - their money, their choice, there is something wrong the moment they starts to claim "everyone else should be buying it for 500$ same as they are.
There is a big difference between purchasing or pirating a game which is legally obtainable and game which is not. If you are buying game which is available on regular market they money you pay is supporting creators, if you are pirating it you are denying them this money. When you buy rare unobtainable game on 2nd hand market it is not supporting creators in slightest way. The only persopn profiting it from it is the reseller. You don't mind? Cool, it's fine, but that does not change the fact that there is ultimate difference between the two cases.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not going to tell people that they shouldn't pirate in that case. I love owning the originals of anything, but that is still crazy. I just have a problem with people deciding 'oh hey, this company hasn't sold this game in a while, therefore they have abandoned it and there it nothing wrong with piracy'.
If I can't find a sodding old game, I just don't play it. Not going to download it from some site.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends on the game ;) If it's narratively driven series skipping 1st game may be a problem ;) Especially consider that me and MSKOTOR started here discussing not about games piracy but books piracy - so imagine 1st volume of book series being not available any longer (there were too few issues of paper copies, licensing for ebook ended) - in this case "if I can't find old book I just don't read it" basically means you will not be able to read any of the following books in the series as well. It's especially common thing with books because debutants and new series usually gave much smaller number of copies issued, if they end up being successfull and popular publisher will boost their numbers in next books, because they proven to sell well, but it doesn't change the fact that first books may be hard to get for years to come (maybe there will be reprint in a few years, maybe never). Simple example - polish post-apo debutant in biggest polish fantasy/sci-fi publishing house gets 3k copies of his debutant novel printed. 2nd volume of said novel was already published in 15k copies because of success of first one, 3rd volume 25k copies. And here comes the question - if only 3k people were able to purchase 1st volume where does all other potential customers should read the book in order to be even able to buy 2nd one?
Generally it's quite different between modern games and books market. Games you can basically sell unlimited copies in nowadays digital era, books you gotta decide how many copies you gonna print. Thus shortages of books, especially in smaller non-english markets are very common thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just came in and saw the abandonware mention, chimed in because I totally wanted to use that GIF.
Books, I suppose I can see that, but older ones may be out of copyright already. Not going to have that with games yet. I've also pirated some ebooks that I've owned physically, but for the reason that my copies were pretty old and tattered given they are as old as me.
Comment has been collapsed.
it really really depends - unless you are into really old classic it's unlikely something you want will get out of copyright protection ;) Basically copyright length is life of author + 70 years or 120 years since publish for anonymous works. It means that if you are into any modern genre - like sci-fi or fantasy which we discussed here, it will still take a lot of time for even older titles to go into public domain ;) For example - if we assume that modern fantasy started with Tolkien, then his works will go to public domain only in 2043 (unpublished ones even later, cause 120 years from creation date). Only semi-modern fantasy author I am aware of being in Public Domain already is George MacDonald. Science fiction is in better spot, as really old novels are in public domain already, but then again - considering the nature of science fiction genre, sci-fi written in 18th or 19th century is pretty dated for nowadays standards as it was mostly based on technology we're already past.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think abandonware isn't even a legal category - in most cases someone still owns the rights, they just don't really care to go after them. Games I would consider abandonware are really old, 80-90s games where studios had the rights, but the documents were lost / the studio just disappeared, not having anyone to counterclaim the free online versions and stuff. Not being sold digitally doesn't mean it's abandoned in any way. (Sad story of No One Lives Forever that multiple studios and publishers CAN have the license, but they are not interested in finding it. But they don't allow the name to be used either because reasons. Weird)
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed, it isn't. Other than the times a developer or publisher has released a game for free at a later date like with Command & Conquer, Grand Theft Auto or Mechwarrior, these 'abandoned' games are just being pirated. A lot of the time, it isn't even a case of the owners going "We don't care, go ahead and do whatever" but users deciding it.
Comment has been collapsed.
to play a devil's advocate here - studios cannot really tell you "We don't care, go ahead and do whatever" - that's because of stupid mark protection rights. They cannot "not protect" their mark and saying "feel free to pirate it" could be viewed as not protecting it in the court. They may not be intrested in this old game at all but still be intrested in trademark. If they wish to ever make a sequel, remake, spinoff, reboot etc, if they want to profit from other merchandise, they gotta protect their rights to the trademark so even if they wished they cannot say stuff like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some really don't care, though as I said, most 'abandonware' games are just because a user wanted to use it as an excuse.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tim Schafer is really rreally not the best example of game industry executive ;p He's actually quite opposite ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
He isn't alone, simply the most recognizable name in the linked Wikipedia page.
Just pointing out some of the creators don't care. Doesn't change my own views posted previously.
Comment has been collapsed.
btw, there is discussion on Polska Fantastyka fb group (btw if you are not a member I suggest joining, lots of great debates, and we all love Hyperion ;p) about the same topic right now - book piracy ;p It got kickstarted by this article: http://naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news,415257,badanie-zwalczanie-piractwa-wcale-nie-poprawia-sprzedazy-ksiazek.html so I'll just leave it here as it fit's what we're discussing ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
As for Hyperion - I checked like 5 or 6 libraries in my city and Katowice to find spare copy to borrow lol. And I never again went tot his library (apart from returning book ofc xD).
Comment has been collapsed.
see - like I said, here lies a problem, if book was popular on actual market and is now hard/impossible to get there - it will also be hard to get in the libraries ;)
Now imagine someone else than us, we are lucky to live in big cities with multiple libraries, but what if someone is from little town or even worse a village and there's only one library there? And this library don't have book you want, or heck, don't even has s-f/fantasy departament?
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems like microtransactions in $60 games are the norm these days.
Comment has been collapsed.
Blame Ubisoft... Other companies have been doing it occasionally but mostly were scared off by the backlash (Dead Space 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider) but they have been doing it in every single Assassin's Creed game since Black Flag.
Comment has been collapsed.
Who cares?
They only speed up progression in a single-player game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, something like this could never escalate. Greed doesn't work that way. It's like DRM, it was never going to spread just because others did it.
I'm being so freaking sarcastic right now.
If you don't see this as troublesome, then you are a part of the problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see it as troublesome. I see people being stupid enough or lazy enough to buy it as troublesome.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or maybe people who over-react and blow things out of proportion are the problem.
I tend not to worry about this sort of shit. I'll leave that to people with nothing better to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't have to do either, but by choosing to pretend there's no problem at all and insulting anyone who sees an issue is trying to get everyone else to be as apathetic as you. You can be apathetic if you want, but that's your problem. Stop trying to spread it like a disease.
Comment has been collapsed.
I posted a comment, and you replied to me, bub. Not the other way around.
You're the one trying to influence my opinion - not the other way around.
You set the tone by calling me part of the problem if I don't see this the same way you do.
It's not apathy, and I'm not trying to influence anyone. I stated my opinion. Get over it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Whatever makes you feel better. Don't get all sensitive just because I called you out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lmao, indeed. Whatever. ;)
(get used to people disagreeing with you, or you're going to have a tough row to hoe in life)
Comment has been collapsed.
Or.. they slowed down the progression to promote their ingame market.
When a corporation focused on making money is the one making decesions, I can guess which one they will chose.
Also, there is multiplayer in this game I think.
Comment has been collapsed.
When a corporation focused on making money is the one making decesions
That's what corporations do. They make decisions to make money. Also, you're speculating to support your point.
Also, there is multiplayer in this game I think.
Steam store page says otherwise.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://pcgamesn.com/middle-earth-shadow-of-war/shadow-of-war-online-multiplayer
Considering how sceptical you are to dismiss his worries, it is funny to see how quickly and readily you trust the Steam store tags. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Only ranked mode is even affected.
Still has no bearing on the SP game (and it's advertised as a SP game) unless you choose to participate.
edit: Oh, and I still don't care. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Why not trust Steam, after all it's the most reliable company... Remember how Steam Greenlight or Direct would makes things BETTER? Oh yes, faith achieved!
Comment has been collapsed.
Here : https://www.gamespot.com/articles/middle-earth-shadow-of-war-has-ranked-online-mode-/1100-6452334/
And yes, I am speculating. I am not deciding that its market is good or bad. I just dont think you should be deciding its not gonna be an issue before its already out
Comment has been collapsed.
just dont think you should be deciding its not gonna be an issue before its already out
There's no deciding -- I know it won't be an issue for me. I'll still play and enjoy the game.
If it's an issue for you, fine - don't buy or play the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
The statement "Who cares" implies that you dont think anyone does or should care about this.
That is not just stating that it isnt an issue for you, but rather that it shouldnt be an issue for anyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
The statement "Who cares" implies that you dont think anyone should care about this.
That pretty much sums it up. Sometimes I think people go looking for things to complain about.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't care at all and yet here you are telling others that they shouldn't care?
It's like sometimes you go looking for people that go looking for things to complain about
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't care at all and yet here you are telling others that they shouldn't care?
Incorrect. I said I don't care and don't think they should care. I don't see the same "problem" they seem to see.
In other words, someone posted a thread, and I posted my opinion.
I didn't tell anyone not to care. I just don't, don't see why they care so much, and said so. Oddly, a number of people here are insisting I should see a problem where I don't.
Comment has been collapsed.
Incorrect. I said I don't care and don't think they should care.
Isn't this what I wrote, or are you objecting to "at all"?
Comment has been collapsed.
yet here you are telling others that they shouldn't care?
I'm not telling anyone not to care. I said I don't think they should. That's my opinion. End of story.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, in your mind, stating your opinion that you don't think people should care on a public forum is not, in fact, telling people that they shouldn't care?
But I guess people stating their opinion that others should care are in fact telling people that they should care?
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope, not telling anyone what to think. I stated my opinion - that I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Someone can tell me what I should think all they like - it's not going to change my mind any more than my opinion will change theirs.
You see ... I realize it's an opinion, and I don't have to agree with it, same as they don't have to agree with mine.
Comment has been collapsed.
let's be fair, he stated his opinion and never demanded that others should think the same. and then the other guy attacked him and posted stuff like "you're part of the problem". it was the other guy who didn't want to accept any opinion other than his own. all other opinions must be people "pretending" not to see a problem. tzaar posted his (seemingly unpopular) opinion and you guys started to tell him he should stop trying to convince people, which he really didn't try at all, if you ask me.
that being said, why would it be bad to try to convince someone of your opinion? if that is somehow not allowed, we can just stop this whole discussion bullshit all together. no need to discuss anything, if it is forbidden to even try to convince someone.
by the way, i have a similar opinion - as long as it doesn't influence my singleplayer experience, i really don't care. and i would like to be able to state that opinion in a thread about this topic, if that's alright for you guys. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
What's with this "you guys"? I'm just one person that finds it odd when someone claiming to not care about a subject feels the need to inform others about how much they don't care.
Comment has been collapsed.
What's with this "you guys"? I'm just one person
you were not the only one on that side of the discussion. there were several people. i said it like this, so you don't get offended that i concentrate just on you and not on the others. and now it's the other way around. oh well...
that finds it odd when someone claiming to not care about a subject feels the need to inform others about how much they don't care.
so the only allowed opinions are against microtransactions here, huh. if someone doesn't have negative feelings on this topic, he better not say that publicly! that's essentially what you're saying. that alone i find very strange. and by the way, your initial accusation was that he tried to tell others what to think. and that, i think, is simply not true.
Comment has been collapsed.
Please tell me what my opinions are on this subject
Comment has been collapsed.
ok, so should i understand that? i guess, you don't know how to answer any of my arguments, so you post this silly line instead? ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you are both telling me what I'm "essentially" saying and trying to lump me up with others so I figured you would somehow know. But since we now have established that you don't know, accusing me of not "allowing" other opinions on the subject is starting to look pretty silly.
Let me try to break this down to you. Pretend that we have a random hypothetical situation where peoples opinions can be put in three different categories.
- I agree with this situation and would like things to stay as they are
- I don't agree with this situation and I would like to see some change
- I don't care about this situation because it doesn't' affect me
People from category 1 and 2 having discussions trying to hash things out seems perfectly normal, to me. It's when people from category 3 turns up, with a seemingly urgent need to inform people from category 1 and 2 how much they don't care, things are starting to feel slightly odd.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some ranked mode I heard, challenges / top list of some sort. I guess some people will feel pretty cheated about the loot boxes and ranks, while others not (I personally can't give a damn about toplists as I don't want to bother with a game that much to be in any proper position)
Comment has been collapsed.
Do micro-transactions ever actually improve the total game experience? If not, then why should it ever be implemented?
If you feel like the game is taking too long, isn't that a problem with the game's pacing? If you just want to see the story, why not watch an LP? If you just want to dick around in the sandbox, why are micro-transactions a viable alternative to cheats, mods, or console commands?
Imagine if any other medium was a tedious slog but offered a pay-to-accelerate function. It would be unacceptable right?
Comment has been collapsed.
Do micro-transactions ever actually improve the total game experience?
Speaking from personal experience - yes, they can. I've played many MMOs and used microtransactions. I even make a point of detailing that later in this thread.
If you feel like the game is taking too long, isn't that a problem with the game's pacing?
Just because one person feels it takes too long doesn't mean anyone else does.
Imagine if any other medium was a tedious slog but offered a pay-to-accelerate function. It would be unacceptable right?
Again, you're assuming it's a tedious slog for everyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why does it 'work' for MMOs: Because MMOs are almost universally slogs anyway.
Why are MMOs slogs: Because of the monetization model. Subscriptions require incentivizing time commitment, ie deliberately slowing down progression. Micro-transactions similarily deliberately waste users' time to encourage payment.
Micro-transactions do not offer a fast lane to game progression. They 'solve' problems directly created to justify the fix. It's what people were worried would happen if Net Neutrality wasn't upheld. By offering an option "to allow players to choose their own pace" they make the default pace worse for everyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
They 'solve' problems directly created to justify the fix.
I'd argue that they solve problems some people might have with a game, while still enjoying other aspects. I only used an MMO as an example, but it applies to all games, really.
For example - one fellow might be busy with a wife, kids, and two jobs, and not have the time to play out what would be a 100 hour game, so offering a way for him to experience the game without sinking 100 hours into it as nice for him and it might be worth a few dollars to him. He gets to experience a game he wouldn't otherwise have time to play.
Another fellow, however, has all the time in the world and enjoys what you call "slogging" - he enjoys leveling up, he enjoys the crafting, the combat, doing all the side-quests and experiencing everything the game has to offer. He still has all the same options as the first fellow, so if he ever changes his mind, he can avoid any bits he doesn't enjoy as well (and enjoy the rest of the game more).
Neither is a "wrong" way to play or enjoy a game, and I'm actually all for publishers who offer more ways for more people to enjoy the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Does the former hypothetical character actually exist ("wants to chew through long games despite not having time"), is the latter really in it for the grind (rather than the core gameplay loops), and is catering to either really so important that everyone else' experience is made worse?
Better question yet, wouldn't they both enjoy the game better if it was paced faster?
Comment has been collapsed.
Does the former hypothetical character actually exist
Look for Nightshifty's comments in this thread. I think he fits in there. I do as well, sometimes.
and is catering to either really so important that everyone else' experience is made worse?
I gave two extreme examples. Assuming the others will fall somewhere between them, they're as free to use any MT options as anyone else to tailor the game-play to their tastes. You can't state that "everyone else's experience is made worse" with any sort of accuracy, so that's irrelevant to discussion. (Keep in mind, we're discussing an unreleased game).
Better question yet, wouldn't they both enjoy the game better if it was paced faster?
Maybe? I suppose it depends on the game and the person. I can't accurately answer that question because everyone has different motivation to play games.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's naive to think that the speed at which you progress in the single player normally will have been in no way influenced by the presence of paid options to accelerate it. They want you to spend money on these microtransactions after all. Making the baseline progression slow(er) is the easiest and most obvious way to achieve that. No doubt they'll specifically insist that's not the case though, and I guess it'll be up to you whether to choose to believe that or not. I know what I believe.
Comment has been collapsed.
More speculation about an unreleased game.
I'll reserve my "review" until I've played it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can understand it in multiplayer games for cosmetics to some degree... but in a single player game...? Seems like they are for speeding progress, but I don't think that XP boosters should be necessary, seems like intentional grinding may be built in to hamper progress
Comment has been collapsed.
it's funny that no one ever mentions rise of the tomb raider has microtransactions, yet it has positive+++ reviews and no one ever complained about them.
just like deus ex mankind divided, these are a non-issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
Non-issue, yeah if it's played right then it will most likely not affect gameplay and therefore not affect reviews too much. Still, single player xp boosts are a bit of an eye raiser.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess you're right about it - but just look around, how big of a thing the boxes in SoW are. Against the people complaining: we don't even know how much effect they will have, will they ever be needed for the game ; and to support their claim: lootbox = you gamble to get something. "proper" microtransactions let you buy whatever you want. It can be both a money-sink to get what you want and at some level it exploits users who have a bigger tendency to gamble.
Comment has been collapsed.
MTs are there for people that don't have ~50 hours to dedicate to a sp game. it's just an option.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here is a revolutionary idea: what if the game was not designed in a way that you either grind for 50 hours or pay 5-10 bucks to get the exact same XP and stuff? What if it was designed like any other single-player game with a progression system before, where players could gradually progress without the urge to get some shortcuts? This is injecting MMO mechanics to single-player game, two worlds which were deliberately kept separated before to cover the largest possible user/buyer base.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, it's a revolutionary idea to remove hours worth of exploring and doing side quests that give me XP and items.
btw, if you played deus ex md you would know the first city map is HUGE, just like tomb raider's areas.
there's no grinding. you could spend at least 15 hours exploring everything and doing side quests.
Comment has been collapsed.
DX4 is relatively close on my to-play list, but I am yet to actually start playing it. So far only did the usual graphical/control scheme fine-tuning in it. Although I know that it only has one quest hub now, unlike any other main DX games before it and similarly to The Fall (where people constantly complained about it).
Comment has been collapsed.
don't get me wrong, i loved deus ex 4. but at the same time, when i was finished with it, i didn't feel like i could have gotten all augmentations in one playthrough. not even close. maybe i missed too much, and it was indeed possible. or maybe it is designed to leave half the augmentations for new game+. but i couldn't help but wondering if they make the augs very expensive, so people buy them with microtransactions. still a great game either way.
Comment has been collapsed.
i finished mission 7 of 17 last night and i already got enough praxis kits to buy more than half of the augs to 100% (not counting experimental ones).
i don't know if i will manage to buy everything without a new game+ but praxis kits are not a rarity if you explore and do side quests.
of course, people need the time to do it and enjoy it. if not, those microtransactions can help them. Β―\_(γ)_/Β―
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, maybe i missed a lot. i am not the completionist kind of guy anyway. i just felt that i didn't get as much aug progression as in the predecessor. but maybe that's just me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then they shouldn't play 50h SP games?
I mean, if I buy Baldur's Gate 2, it's to play it 100 hours, not just "buy ending"
Comment has been collapsed.
ah, i didn't know people shouldn't play certain games because they weren't allowed to choose how to spend their money.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where does that even come from? If you don't have time to play the 50H SP game, don't buy the 50H SP game. The common trend of RPG's these days is around 10H, so plenty of stock to get into?
It's like me buying a fighting game (which I hate), then spend more money to NOT play it (since I don't like it), and calling that "sense".
Instead, perhaps, I could buy something I would enjoy and play that instead. I know, what insane logic I hold. Actually buying games according to my wishes.
Comment has been collapsed.
i could buy a fighting game and unlock all characters with my money, instead of having to beat story mode 500 times to unlock skins, modes, playable bosses, etc.
that doesn't make me an idiot, nor the developer a greedy bastard.
same with long games. if i have the time, i would play... witcher 3 for 500 hours.
if i didn't have time and i had the option to buy 10 levels for $10, i would do it to skip grinding and doing 100 side-quests during 9999 hours and focus on the main quest.
Comment has been collapsed.
But then you realise... why do you have to beat the game 500 times for that? Due to the real-money unlock.
Also, still my point stands if the game is NOT for you, buy a game that's for you. Like... why buy a game, and then pay more to skip it? Buy something you play instead.
Is that really alien logic in 2017?
Comment has been collapsed.
because i have the money to do it?
that's the only logic needed here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, let's compare logics.
A game is really grinding. It's insufferable how annoying it is to proceed.
You: "I wish I could pay to skip forward"
Me: "Fuck this game. I'm going to play something I'll enjoy"
Why would I want to pay more for a game that aggrevates me to make it less aggrevating? Instead of, you know, play something good? Fun? Actually having the time of my life rather than feeling the need to skip half-the-game since it's not for me?
Comment has been collapsed.
The fault is you assume that the grinding is annoying. Maybe I enjoy the grind but don't have the time for it?
Comment has been collapsed.
That's baked in the word "grind"... grinding by definition isn't enjoyable. If you enjoy it, it's not a grind. Thus you can't "enjoy the grind", since those 2 words are extreme opposites of each other.
If you enjoy the GAME but don't have time for it, enjoy it when you do have time? I mean, unless it's a monthly paid MMO or something, you got all the time in the world to finish it. There's literally no point in skipping content you like, especially if you like it. And then pay to skip stuff you like too.
I would just rather play it, thus extending the time I have with this one game, thus making me need to buy a new game or start a new game less. I've got a huge backlog. It allows one to wait till games they want to play are at their extreme low price (Shadows of Mordor? Yeah, free from Indiegala).
I don't really see the need to pay 60 euro, then 40 euro more to rush it, then 60 euro again for the other new game I'm just not going to enjoy the way I want. If I were to ever think like that, what's the point of gaming to me? There would not be one.
Comment has been collapsed.
But it's not... grind refers to repetitive tasks needed to be done to accomplish a goal which =/= to hating the repetitiveness of the task. Also you tend to contradict yourself with your own actions. You said "if I don't have time for a game I won't buy it" yet you also say "I've got a huge backlog"... so why did you spend money on games that you can't play? Especially since the more time passes said games get cheaper and cheaper.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it's rather hard to find a proper definition for it. Most dictionaries don't like the gaming definition apparently.
But I found this;
"to perform a monotonous task repeatedly in order to advance a character to a higher level or rank"
If you're having fun, it's obviously not a monotonous task. If it feels repetetive, that already means you're not enjoying it anymore, otherwise you wont have that feeling.
As for the backlog; Meet Humble Bundle, Indiegala and Bundlestars. Also this site called Steamgifts. I haven't bought a game at Steam in, what, a year now? Atleast. And definitely never full-priced. 75% off or bust.
Especially with all this DLC rage it's unwise to buy anything that isn't bundled up into a Gold/GOTY/Uber/Whatever edition nowadays.
Also there was a time before having a kid... it really drains your time like no tomorrow, and I heavily underestimated that.
Comment has been collapsed.
But it's still money spent on all those sites... since you have a backlog you could literally not spend a dime and just hope you win it here :)
It's kinda like paying for microtransctions to skip a grind... I'll pay $1 to humble to not have to enter thousands of gibs on sg to try and win it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I could. And mostly do.
What I get is those $1 from HB - their quality price is quite good, and VN bundles since I enjoy reading those while eating or otherwise having little time, so those get through rather fast, unlike the AAA+'s
Some bundles literally barely turn up here. I looked out for Bedfellow Frenzy which was in 2 bundles and I've literally seen it pass 3 times. That's just way too little odds... and I've already played it after buying (being a shorter game I could play easily in downtimes). So pretty much the whole point I've been making all along. Why spend money skipping games if I can just play games I like instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nobody's paying to skip whole games. That's just an overexaggeration you use to try to make your point of view acceptable. Please go read the other reply I gave you where I capsed a bunch of words and reflect on that reply
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would I
That's the key phrase. Maybe you wouldn't but someone else might.
Speaking from recent experience -- I loved "Inside", but I suck at platforming puzzles. There was one sequence that drove me nuts with the timing, and honestly, I'd have paid to skip that part rather than replay it over and over as it deteriorated my enjoyment of what was otherwise a fantastic game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, that's the key phrase. Why would one pay for something one doesn't enjoy instead of playing something one does enjoy. That still has not been answered btw.
And there lies the problem. If you're stuck, why is the first thing you come up with is "I wish I could pay to pass this" rather than just wanting a cheat to pass that section? That's where you've already treaded down the slippery slope publishers want you. Just thinking like that is what makes these things happen...
Trust me, if I ever get frustrated with a game "paying to skip it" will never EVER pass my mind. Never.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would one pay for something one doesn't enjoy instead of playing something one does enjoy. That still has not been answered btw.
I did answer that. I might love the game, but not like one particular aspect of the game.
If you're stuck, why is the first thing you come up with is "I wish I could pay to pass this" rather than just wanting a cheat to pass that section?
I didn't say it crossed my mind. I said if the opportunity was there, I'd have taken it. It was an example I chose, that's all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand that. But in most good games, that would be optional. If a major aspect of the games is of no interest to me, it's fairly unlikely the game by itself is of interest to me.
Very few games just throw random new elements in which are so aggrevating that they stop your enjoyment in a critical pass. Well, good games anyway.
And those who don't I really don't see why I should reward them financially for annoying me.
I'm a completionist by nature, but I really have no hesitation to completely drop something if it annoys me. Horrid minigame? Well, I'll stick with 95% then. I don't see no reason to pay for something not enjoyed, rather do something enjoyable instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the thing though! The microtransactions in shadow of war are purely optional! It's optional getting them... and what you get from them are also optional items! They don't force you to buy something to finish the game they just give you options to speed things up IF you want 100% completion.
EDIT: here here lemme point it out that even in the article (which I assume you didn't read) it says "Which is a bit bum in a Β£45 singleplayer game. Yes, all of these orcs and items can be earned by playing and without spending an extra penny but:"
That but shouldn't exist... people shouldn't care if they offer the option to skip for those who can afford to do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can see the points that both sides are making.
i can understand that people are worried that EA in particular will see: 'Huh, no one complained are the micro transactions this time around' and then go on to think 'Maybe they won't get angry as well if next time we lock content behind DLC walls'
This fear comes from a loss of faith with EA as a company in recent years. (and also knowing big companies in general)
Comment has been collapsed.
The dlc walls have been up for a while... and people have been complaining about them and they're still there. So what's the point of all this complaining? Why do people nowadays have to constantly complain about something?
Comment has been collapsed.
they are angry others have no problem spending their money as they please.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for completely missing the point, not answering the question ("why spend money to skip the game if you don't want to play that game?") and painting us off as if it's like we're having issues with the way people spending money while we simply don't understand why you guys don't spend it on enjoyable games rather than skipping ones you don't want to play.
Good going there.
Comment has been collapsed.
You were answered that a few times in your arguments here you just seem to refuse the answer. PEOPLE DO ENJOY THE GAMES JUST WANT TO SAVE TIME ON SOME TASKS IF POSSIBLE SO THEY CAN KEEP ENJOYING THE PARTS THEY DO ENJOY.... did you actually read it this time? If so PLEASE take like 20mins and think about what that means before you reply again with "I just don't get why you'd pay money on a game you don't enjoy"
Comment has been collapsed.
Which, again, is a contradiction. If you enjoy something, why would you pay to skip that which you enjoy. Infact, you actually say "keep enjoying the parts they do enjoy" implying they are infact skipping something they would not enjoy, which contradicts with your "you're enjoying it"...
It would be much easier if there weren't so many contradictions. Do they skip what they enjoy or what they don't enjoy. If they don't enjoy it, is it in the game just to enjoy and make you pay to skip? If so, these transactions do infact harm gameplay, which is all our fear, and which you wave away with "you just have a problem how people pay their games".
No, I have an issue with activtely harming a game to sell micro-transactions. And people who reward bad gameplay with money instead of scorn.
Comment has been collapsed.
There will always be parts SOME people do not enjoy in games... like spiders for people who suffer from arachnophobia. That doesn't mean the person doesn't enjoy the game nor does it mean that including spiders in the game is harming gameplay... it just means that some people like having the option to skip what they want to skip and it does not harm gameplay one bit.
The microtransactions don't sell items you NEED to advance... they sell items that you COULD get if you wanted them. They don't hurt gameplay whatsoever. With the game not out yet I'm going to just speculate that lvling in shadow of war will be just as rapid as it is in fallout 4 with the only difference beeing the xp boosters that shadow of war is offering and fallout 4 isn't. I'm willing to bet people will complain that lvling in shadow of war is slow "because of the boosters" while nobody is complaining about lvling in fallout 4 since no xp boosters there.
Comment has been collapsed.
You remember the old days, when they released mods for Arachnophobic people rather than they were forced to pay to skip a segment? Good times.
Oh, I'm not fully discarding the idea to skip some content. I am discarding the idea of making people PAY real money for that in their AAA+ game. Imagine if Ubisoft added an ingame option to just mark all their towers completed. Would you think that's a good idea? Cause I don't think so.
And still with the naieve thinking that the game will not have balance-changes in any way to promote real-money purchases. Like the Blizzard lootdrop changes mentioned often before (you just KNOW that rare or epic drops are much rarer now, right? Oh, you don't mind, well... you SHOULD really, since it's all done to maximize profit, not to enhance gameplay).
Comment has been collapsed.
But you don't have to pay real money... you can spend currency you earn ingame by playing the game (it's also mentioned in the article). It's like removing the limit on how many skill points you get by giving you the option to buy skill points with real money. Some people will do it some people won't and we shouldn't be dismissing anyone's choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, and as always, that "ingame currency" is super-slow, or just not enough so you need to add a little real money, and then some more, and then some more.
It's not like we've never seen micro-transactions before and this is all knew. We know what they are, what the tricks are to look legit ("You can get it playing!") or what's their devious ways to persue you to spend real money after all.
To use your skillpoint example:
No microtransactions - 100 skillpoints.
Microtransactions - 40 skillpoints, 60 paid. But you can get those for ingame's currency you also need for orks, gear etc. Oh, nothing was lost since you can still all get it ingame.
Yeah, not seeing the difference there at all, sleezy technically legally right but still not the same. And this literally happens ALL THE TIME.
As you can see, going from 100 free to 100 (40-60) that would definitely affect my game. Their PR would still be right, and yes, I don't have to. But I would get hampered. Just to sell me stuff. And if I "choose" not to participate I got 40% the game before they decided to go ingame shop. See why I would complain? Why it's not just someone's choice to pay or not?
Comment has been collapsed.
But you don't NEED to add real money you CHOSE to. You don't want to play a grind filled game? Don't do it... but don't ask people who do or those who pay to skip the grind to justify why they made whatever choice they made. Also... you're speculating on what the base game would be to begin with. You say 100 free points become 40 free and 60 payed... I say 100 free points become 100 free and you have the choice to buy 100 more for $$$.
The thing you're getting wrong in this entire argument here is not that we're trying to defend the companies who use shady practices to make money. We're trying to defend our choice to do whatever we want to do with our money without having to justify to you why we're doing it. If I want to spend $10000 to skip playing a game that I payed another $10000 on that is my choice and I don't need to justify to you why I'm doing it so stop asking "why would you do that?". It really doesn't not concern you how I spend my money. That's the main point everyone here is trying to get through to you
Comment has been collapsed.
You do realise my point is the grind is there in the first place to sell stuff, right?
So no stuff to sell, no grind. Everyone happy?
That's the entire problem. Everyone happy, proper balance doesn't sell nearly as much as annoyance with a pay-barrier. It's the entire basics most f2p casual games are build upon.
And you're playing right into it by activelly rewarding developers for that, and thus making it MORE interesting for them to do this in their games. That's my issue, that's why I'm complaining. That's why I'm caring "what you give your money to". I don't care about you, or where you spend your money.
I care that you actively promote and reward developers for making giant walls in their games to overcome. Not making them better, but worse.
I want better games. And that means NO balancing around the best way to sell stuff to players. But rather balance around an enjoyable game.
Why does that meet so much hostility?
EDIT: "You say 100 free points become 40 free and 60 payed... I say 100 free points become 100 free and you have the choice to buy 100 more for $$$."
And that's why I say you're naieve. And probably little experience with micro-transactions, f2p games or MMO's.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because what you do is basically attacking the way I spend my money with the argument "it will make things worse for me if you do that". Also if we realistically look at things... if they don't do this there's always the option of just upping the base price of the game. So instead of spending $60 for a AAA base game you'll start paying $100 for a base game. I'd rather they keep this dlc/microtransaction trend going to prevent the base price of a game going up. That way I can at least enjoy the base game at a lower price.
Comment has been collapsed.
The base game is already basically $100 due to the DLC's. Infact, you can drop $100 right now on the game. And it wont be complete since more DLC to come too.
Great, huh?
Yes, adding paywalls ingame and balance around that does infact make it worse for me. It would infact make it worse for everyone. Even you, paying one, since you wont profit, you'll just balance out.
But that's really all micro-transactions are nowadays. They're not to boost you, it's to take away the annoyances ingame specifically added to support sales. There are entire studies on the subject.
And I also have to disagree with you that nerfting the gameplay is less worse than raising the price. Games go on sales. Prices drop. Ruined gameplay stays forever.
Comment has been collapsed.
But the base game is not $100 it's $60. It doesn't matter how much money you CAN drop on it because you aren't forced to.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, they've already cut out chunks of it to sell seperate, as you wanted, even without micro's.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let me tell you what will happen if the dlcs vanish... what you say is an incomplete game now because of missing dlcs will just become the norm of what a full game will be in the future and there will be nothing added to that. What baffles me is that people complain about dlcs when the base game alone can easily account for over 300h of gameplay depending on your approach. Phantom pain's base game took 2400h of my time (granted at least half of that was afk time while leaving game open to get resources)
Comment has been collapsed.
Or; all those teams making side-content along the main game work on the main game. Or they actually design a fully fleshed out game rather than one that is "adapted" on day 0.
Or those teams make a whole other game. Or maybe they'll actually make post-release content, rather than side-release content (why ain't that in the game? Cause REASONS). Who knows?
Comment has been collapsed.
So... you think that by cutting the profit those teams generate they will still be employed? I'm sorry I believe somewhere in these whole tread you were talking about naivety... I think you're the one suffering from it. Those teams that work on side content would be released from their duties if they weren't generating any profit and you'd still get the base game the main team is working on. Maybe they'll make a new game? Sure that would be other money you'd have to spend... so what's wrong with spending it on new content for a game you already like? Post release content will still cost money also... so what's the difference when it's being worked on? The earlier it's done the earlier you get it... you still pay for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you don't see aaaaany problems at all splitting teams way before gold disk to start working on dlc again for a non-finished game? Working of concepts of the base game otherwise they can't really work alongside it.
And since they're a split-off of the original devteam (that included them earlier on) you have to pay extra.
Really, nooooooothing at all?
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude they are not splitting teams... they already have a team working on the game. If the other team won't work on dlc the other team just won't exist at all... nothing will change in the schedule of the first team assigned to the base game. Once again if they start working on it after they release the game you STILL PAY for the extra content... it will just take longer to bring the extra content out. Look at fallout 4... when did the base game come out? When did the dlcs start coming out? When were you already able to buy the season pass?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes? I already said it does affect others? My question is why is it ok for you to judge my decision to pay for something that doesn't bother me but bothers you?
Comment has been collapsed.
But it's really not your concern what I do with my money regardless if it affects you or not. My money... I worked for it and you get no say in how I spend it.
Comment has been collapsed.
We could go into your spending habits and I'm willing to bet I could point out a few things that could easily be replaced with cheaper options that you wouldn't consider because of comfort/quality or w/e other reason you have to spend more money on said product.
Comment has been collapsed.
This made me chuckle :) I really hope you understood the point I was making though :p
Comment has been collapsed.
Some people pay an extra fee to get their packages delivered faster. It punishes the ones who go with the standard shipping fee but you don't see the other people waiting in line complain about it. Would you?
Comment has been collapsed.
I honestly never saw anyone complain nor has anyone complained to me... so far XD I was making a parallel because it's the exact same type of situation that gets heat in one scenario and not in the other. Yes this capitalistic world allows money to rule but you can't really blame those who use their money to get more satisfaction from their life.
Comment has been collapsed.
i just answered you 5487654856445 times (if you want you can also buy EVEN more answers from me with MullyReplies Pack DLCβ’).
- it's THEIR MONEY
- they have the right to spend it as they please
- and they have the right to play or not play games as they seem fit
Comment has been collapsed.
- But it affects everyone's game if developers alter the game to make people "more willing to buy micro-transactions"
- Indeed. But I just want to know the "why?" and it's very hard to find a good answer that isn't immediately a rant to me and how horrible I am and how I want people to spend their money.
- Indeed. But I still just want to understand the reasoning of paying for something to skip. I mean, gaming is something done for fun. It's like buying tickets for a concert, then paying even more for someone else to listen to it instead of you. If you dislike the concert, why didn't you buy a ticket for your favorite band instead and listen to it all?
Yet no one answered me that yet, and apparently tensions are rising to massive levels.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have been provided with reasons you just refuse to accept them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing that I haven't already gotten from the WB PR-department. And let me take "It's optional!", "It will not affect your game" etc with a grain of salt, since it will. That they list basic gameplay as "stuff you want to skip" isn't that promising either.
If you want to skip the game, why buy the game. And before you pull the whole "nobody says that, you're stretching it out again" that's literally the PR-speech WB says. And if SoM is anything to go on, that's basically all the game IS.
Comment has been collapsed.
But that's literally the truth... you are stretching it out AGAIN. Nobody is paying to skip full games and that's also never going to be the case and at the same time if I want to pay for a game and afterwards pay to get to the ending... it's MY choice and it doesn't concern YOU whatsoever.
Comment has been collapsed.
It does if they neuter the game to sell their f2p bs. As every micro-transaction game does to date.
Just go to facebook and start games there and tell me the ability to pay doesn't infact influence the games present.
You can't, because it does. And you can't just wave it away with "well, it's my choice to pay so it wont affect you." because it DOES affect me. It affects us ALL. It affects future games. It affects the industry.
It's so easy just to have it be about "well, my choice, you wont notice a difference" but... THERE WILL BE MICRO-TRANSACTIONS IN SHADOW OF WAR. I say that's a pretty grand chance made due to people who went and bought micro's, don't you say?
It's like if people argumented "well, spending money in GTA V online is okay, it doesn't affect you."... but do you see SP-content for that game? GTA VI? Anything single-player related? So yes, it DOES affect me. A game isn't just a completly isolated instalment where anything about it affects nothing at all, especially with those copy-heavy AAA+ devs around.
Comment has been collapsed.
Welcome to the real world were money rules and people just follow it. I don't care if me spending money on micro transactions affects you. If I won't be able to afford whatever changes that will bring in the future I won't be spending my money on those changes and I'll just have to put up with the lifetime of games I already have.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Welcome to the real world were money rules and people just follow it"
Exactly. And that's why the "why do you care how I spend my money. It's my money" doesn't go up. The way you spend it affects the games I can play in the future. I didn't support dlc, but enough did, so dlc is common now. Same will happen here, but we TRY to make a feeble attempt to stop it at it's core.
But seeing the way this topic goes, it's just as futile an attempt. And we'll just have to wait what the 3rd cash-grab is developers end up with.
But thanks for going from "it wont affect you" to "it will affect you but I don't care". That's kinda really all I wanted to know. And now you also acknowledge that your spendings do affect others.
Comment has been collapsed.
But it does go up... it's my money and I spend it whichever way I want in this money driven world. I never said it doesn't affect you I said you can always go the normal way about it... hence why I keep telling you that you don't have to spend any money yourself and you'd still have what I have but later.
You're like a hunter telling someone who buys meat to stop buying meat and start hunting instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can, until the time all games are infested with micro's since when it started, people just chew it up.
Same for horse armor.
It's pretty much a critical time to view if we're going to get micro's in all out AAA+ games in the future, since this is definitely the ball the industry is looking at to see if it's in or out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lemme tell you a secret... I didn't buy horse armor. I didn't care for it so I didn't buy it... I also didn't complain about it because I don't give a flying duck about it. It's not something I NEED nor is it something that prevents me from finishing the game.
Microtransactions have never offered endings and most likely never will so you will always be able to play the games even if they're infested with microtransactions... just ignore them like I did with the horse armor.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, really. Go to facebook, start a random game there, and see how much micro's can change your game. Even if "you can still finish the game". Or heck, play a f2p MMO. Most of these got micro's to lessen inconviences.
Actually most people think TOR's f2p is unplayable due to restrictions you need to pay for to get ouf of. That's the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't matter how much micro's change the game... the point is you can still play without them. Also TOR is a subscription based game that offers you the chance to experience it until lvl 50... just like demos for non subscription based games. WoW is a subscription based game also... if it offered you the chance to play it for free for 3 months you'd consider the original game (the one you need to pay a subscription for) unplayable right?
Comment has been collapsed.
You should really look up TOR's F2P package again, since that's not it ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Enlighten me... what is it? As far as I know TOR is subscription based... so what's the free package doing wrong besides restricting free players from content other players pay for?
Comment has been collapsed.
For god's sake, because there are games with great strories and shitty mechanics where you want to get the story but the game itself is not enjoyable. People are not buying "endings" on games that they hate, why do you even got this twisted picture in your head to begin with? Same games are just too long for how enjoyable they are, but the ending is an ending. For example Alice Madness Returns is beautiful, the environments are nice but each area's enemies get pretty stale after defeating a few of them and finding their weak points, and the combat system itself is super simplistic. Yet the game just goes on and on and on and on. Some people would like to shorten the padding part between story events or something meaningful happening.
Comment has been collapsed.
So what happened to looking up the plot on YouTube then? I know I have with games with wonderous plot but gameplay that's attrocious.
I definitely don't give them extra MONEY for their shiity game design.
Oh, I totally agree with games doing that. What I don't get is the answer is "paid to skip" rather than "having a more streamlined game". Ie. why reward devs for adding grinding and bad gameplay with money, making them do MORE of it, rather than rewarding them to actually make a good game.
It's like racing games that offer car unlocks as dlc. Why buy the game in the first place if you aren't even planning to play it really?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because I rather play games not watch other people play games. IMO that's the most pointless waste of time to watch someone else play a game you want to play yourself
Comment has been collapsed.
But you don't want to play it since, quote "shitty mechanics where you want to get the story but the game itself is not enjoyable."
Atleast, that does not sound enticing to me. At all.
Of course I don't YouTube games I enjoy. But the outset here specifically set not enjoy. And yeah, why would you keep playing those?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's like racing games that offer car unlocks as dlc. Why buy the game in the first place if you aren't even planning to play it really?
Are you really this delusional? Doesn't even occur your mind that someone buys the cars and the PLAY THE GAME WITH THEM?
You went balls-deep with your slippery slope arguement that any progress-helping DLC / skipping the game or not playing it at all, and you still can't stop with it, It's just sad, like absolutely. At least you aren't the only person going on a tangent on SG who has his head up in his ass and refuse to accept anything else than his ideology, while aggressively going after everyone, repeating the same flawed arguements. Maybe you two should make a club, there nobody would dare to have a different opinion than yours ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Some people really have an issue with how much money people spend on things they wouldn't themselves spend money on
Comment has been collapsed.
In general, the more you complain and the more people that complain, the more likely you are to get heard and for something to be changed
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe 90% of the gaming community has complained about dlcs... still there
Comment has been collapsed.
In reality its probably far less than 50%, and complaining about DLC in general isn't going to get companies to pick up on it, especiallly when some DLC is specfically like for expanion the fallout 3/new vegas scenarios, or expansion in witcher 3
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd say it's even far less than 50% complaining but like everyone else I have no clue :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Complaining > https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/pL00u/shadow-of-war-will-have-microtransactionsBeing productive (though in my case Munching popcorns and reading forums > being productive)
Comment has been collapsed.
This fear comes from a loss of faith with EA as a company in recent years. (and also knowing big companies in general)
To be frank, I am expecting Bethesda to be the first one to actually go ahead and do that. Not EA, not Activision, Capcom or even UbiSoft (unless they get taken over by Vivendi, in which case DLC paywalls will probably be only the first step).
Edit: Oh, dear god, this nested forum sometimes is terrible.
Comment has been collapsed.
When instead of putting every new reply under each other, it creates these answer chains, only after a while, like here, it becomes one giant untangible mess where you cannot tell who is replying to whom. Reddit made it quite popular, even though it has been around for a while. I really hate it. Even the Steam forums are more readable than this. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why I don't read those long discussions here at all, I have no idea who answered to whom and who was first xD
Comment has been collapsed.
"To be frank, I am expecting Bethesda to be the first one to actually go ahead and do that."
Paid mods were a horrible idea!
...
...
...
Let's do that again!
Comment has been collapsed.
That's some pretty optimistic thinking not many people share.
Infact micro-transactions usually drive the developers to put in waiting, grind and "boreness you want to skip" to make them pay. It's the basic fundamental rule of f2p games or casual games. Ones on facebook all got timers and stuff you can skip with real money. Guess why? They didn't add in the moneyoption due to the timer, they added the timer for the money option.
Similarly many share the fear SoW will be "padded" with grind, drops nerfed and other measures taken to pressure people into paying money. Why? Since we're all used to seeing these tactics come into play from paid games going f2p, or micro's being introduced in games.
We've ALL heard the "It's optional!" but what's rarily said is "but if you don't, you have to grind for hours" which is true for most micro-based games around. (you even conviently ended on 'but' in your edit and left out the entire 'but'... making my point)
It's very easy to modify XP by 0.01 to sell XP boosters after all. It's all optional, but yeah, that 0.01 wasn't meant for gameplay enjoyment, it was purely done for profit. Harming the game in the process. Optional. HAH.
Comment has been collapsed.
That doesn't change the fact that you can still finish the game without spending a penny. Like you said if you don't enjoy it don't play it. But you seem to not accept that people DO enjoy it and want to play it and just don't have the time for some of the more time consuming things that they also enjoy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gotta love that argument.
"You gotta grind a full year of 365 days 10 hour game sessions instead, but hey, it's without spending money. Technically."
That's exactly the kind of corporate BS you shouldn't swallow, IMO. And what makes rampant decisions to add money-drainers to games like this, and get away with it. And then it gets WORSE.
And "don't enjoy it don't play it" is my argument. Which you all counter with 'well, then I'll just pay money to skip it instead'... I will indeed stop playing games I don't enjoy.
Comment has been collapsed.
You keep ignoring what people are telling you. Nobody is paying to skip full games. Stop using that overexaggeration in every reply you give. It's not making any point go through it just makes your entire point extremely easy to dismiss because your whole argument is founded by that obscene exaggeration
Comment has been collapsed.
No, but they are paying to skip gameplay of their games. Which are either;
A) Enjoyable. So why skip it. Time. So why not play a shorter, probably cheaper game?
B) Not enjoyable. So why play the game at all? The rest is good? Then is this section just added to sell you stuff? If optional, why not just ignore it rather than pay to ignore it. If main-critical, why would you financially reward them for something annoying you? Is it not likely if the MQ annoys you now it will in the future? Why is skipping a paid option rather than a cheat of old?
Comment has been collapsed.
But in most good games, that would be optional.
The term good is subjective - case in point - I believe Inside was fantastic, despite the bit I didn't like.
I don't see no reason to pay for something not enjoyed, rather do something enjoyable instead.
And there are others who would have no problem paying a couple of dollars to simply bypass the annoying bits to enjoy the rest of the game to its fullest. That's the point I was making. I used to subscribe to an MMO just to have a mount so I didn't have to run everywhere. You might say "if you didn't enjoy running, then don't play the game", but I'd rather pay to enjoy the game more than not play it at all. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair enough on Inside. There's sometimes that one level that really sucks :/.
Oh, don't get me started on MMO's. Played The Old Republic for quite some time. Never really enjoyed it, only think keeping me going was the people playing with. The interaction was the fun, the game, it's medium to interact with, was the bore. Once I stopped playing it was like a weight lifted and I really never miss spending thousands of hours on it. Makes me fully understand the trap-mechanics, and I sure as hell never want to be pulled into those ever again.
Also the mount thing paying kinda sums up the whole argument; devs enter super-slow walking, offer mount as fast option to make you pay money. You pay money for this convience. And then publishers and developers try ever more how many "conviences" they can slice out of the game and sell as potential moneymakers.
Why give proper XP if you can do 1% of it and sell boosters. Why drop epic loot at 10% chance if you can make it 0.01% but paid crates have high chances. Why have acceptable movement speeds when you can sell mounds for that? Why have infinite lives when you can sell them each, or have people wait 30m instead they probably don't want. And on, and on, and on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also the mount thing paying kinda sums up the whole argument;
Not really. It was a F2P MMO (Tera) and they had to make money somehow. If they handed you everything, the game wouldn't last very long..
Instead, they give you what you need to get by, and offer to sell you items to speed certain processes up. I see nothing wrong with that. You can still play without them -- it just takes longer. Some people (like Nightshifty) might not have the time, or like me, they simply want to progress faster because they enjoy the game more when they do.
Having those things on offer is a blessing for some people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah. That's the whole process f2p tears on, for free games! But now imagine that in your 60eur (or 100eur in this case) non-f2p game.
Which is happening RIGHT NOW.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I don't have a problem with it.
No one is forcing you to buy the micro-transactions to enjoy the game.
No one is forcing me to buy the micro-transactions to enjoy the game.
If they were necessary to progress, I might take issue, but they're not.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they "optimise" the game for full-financial gain (-drops, -gear, -xp, -speed, -everything) then yes, it's definitely hampering my enjoyment of the game. Even if indeed, I would not be forced to buy them. I would just have to be bored and annoyed. Actually, that doesn't sound like enjoy at all.
There's a lot you can take out to make a game more annoying without affecting the ability to finish.
And since it's WB, this is pretty much 80% likely to happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
And obviously, you and I are not expected to enjoy the same types of games.
I don't mind games with this type of DLC, and obviously you do.
... and ne'er shall the twain meet. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't mind it in my f2p games (I don't foolishly believe "free to play" is actually "free"), I do in 60 AAA+ games. With 40 euro additional DLC upfront with more to come.
And yet still needs to add micro's ontop of that all.
At that point one has to wonder, if you really need to sell for 100 pop a game, isn't it time to bring money spend to make it down? Instead of ever inflating and trying to put the price on the players?
Comment has been collapsed.
Which part you didn't like? The jumping to chains at the water part? (That came to my mind that almost progress-haltingly different from previous puzzles and "roadblocks" )
Comment has been collapsed.
Precisely that part ... I'm terrible with timing-sensitive platforming.
Comment has been collapsed.
You probably don't realize what it's like to want to play a game that you really don't have time for. Just because the game is long it doesn't mean I hate playing it because it takes too long... it just means that I hate not having the time to enjoy the game I wanted to play
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, being a recent parent that's a fan of 100H RPG's... I fully and totally understand.
And thus my RPG session takes a LOOOOONG time (not in playtime, but months to complete since less time to play). There's absolutely no intention of skipping content amongst that. If that would be the case, I would instead dump the game, and proceed with something I would be more interested in.
Comment has been collapsed.
You keep saying "If that were the case I would rather do that" Let me try also. If I enjoyed long games as much as you do I would not have kids.... see what I did there? What I would do is entirely irrelevant on what you should do or enjoy doing. Your arguments with the several users trying to point that out need to end here before it becomes too ridiculous.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I don't have an opinion on your ability or desire to be parent. But liking long games obviously isn't something that completely eliminates that.
I'm not quite sure if there was another point than that in above post.
The argument was (and still is) why would I skip enjoyable parts if I enjoy them (to save time seems a bad argument, you could just stretch out the time taken to complete the game) or why would I pay to skip a game I'm not enjoying anyway (rather than, say, play another game instead).
There's been a lot of words told me that micro-transactions are great to skip a game. But nobody answered if you want to skip a game... WHY PLAY THE GAME?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because I enjoy the game? I enjoy the grind also but don't have the time to do it so I'll just pay to skip the grind to get the item I wanted and move on to the next game that I really want to play but can't because I've already been playing shadow of war for 6 months?
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, there's no time limit. If fed up with one game, why not go to the other and return later when you're not worn out of it, why skip segments for it, paid, to move to the next game?
I suppose it's some compulsion to finish a game? If so I could see that being something, but I also notice that these publishers are exploiting you for it, straight and simple.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is a time limit... it's called dying. Believe it or not if I stopped working right now and did nothing besides play the games I have I would die before seeing the end of all of them (especially because new games that I also want to play keep coming out)
Comment has been collapsed.
That's... ehm... wow.
Yeah, probably same here... but since a lot of my games in my library are shit (games that came in bundles along with games I wanted) I doubt I would even get to heck 30% of my games to the end. Most I would probably drop rather soon since I just don't like them in favour of games I do like.
And some of them (Heavy Rain) I'll never experience since I'm PC gamer pure sang and don't do consoles. Even if I want. That's just the way of life.
I could buy a console, I could buy the game. I could do all of that. But I would ask, why not just play another game instead? Plenty enough around.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not being able to play Heavy Rain is a pity. Everything about that game was great and you are missing out on a wonderful experience. I'm sure you've seen the playthroughs but you won't get the same feeling you do when you're playing it yourself and make your own choices and your own mistakes. Sure I could play another game instead but I'll still keep thinking about the game I didn't play.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup. In my case "If you made a PC port you would have gotten my money"...
Definitely not buying a console, especially for one game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I blew thru that game without even realizing it had microtrans -.-
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't know or really care about Tomb Raider, really, except the older ones, but I remember it being quite the issue when Mankind Divided was released.
Comment has been collapsed.
i'm playing deus ex right now and it's a non-issue.
people love to cry about stuff they don't even have experience with.
Comment has been collapsed.
making huge maps and encouraging people to explore them isn't setting up a paywall, it's developing a game properly instead of releasing a linear gameplay like call of duty.
if i have time and i like to explore/complete side quests, good for me. i can spend 500 hours in the game.
i don't have enough time or i dislike anything else than the main quest? amazing, i can pay $10.000 and buy "levels" to complete the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think one issue with DE:MD was that the microtransaction in the single campaign didn't carry over. It only worked for a single playthrough and you had to buy it again if you wanted faster progression on the next playthrough.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, that's crap. even promo items are only valid for 1 playthrough.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hence, it was an issue for some people from what I understand. I don't mind optional payment schemes, but that is pretty shady (I didn't play DE:MD yet, so not much to say about it yet). I dunno if that was the same with TR. If it wasn't it might explain the difference in reception.
People often do have a valid point in the beginning, but then when a lot of people join in the issue gets distorted. ex) There were a lot of valid problems with some DLC schemes, but now a lot of people jump on everything that has lots of DLC because they heard it is bad. I feel like most initial objection to DE: MD's payment scheme had a valid point from what I hear.
Comment has been collapsed.
In Deus Ex: Mankind Divided they were slapped on at a very late stage of development, thus they did not have time to actually implement things "properly". The developers simply could not change the game to accommodate the microtransactions.
Where it gets harmful is when a game is changed to accommodate these microtransactions. The easiest way is to put up a grind barrier. You can either grind a lot to get this stuff, or you can pay real world money to not have to grind. This is likely to have been grind that would either not have been in the game, or would not have been so bad, if the microtransactions were not there. An example of this would be Diablo 3, where the droprates were balanced around the existence of their marketplace. When they finally removed the marketplace, they also changed the droprates to something more reasonable. But Blizzard was incentivesed to keep the droprates "bad" so that people would pay money on their market place.
The other big example of a game being changed to accommodate microtransactions would be Dead Space 3, which got an entire mechanic slapped on that really does not fit, simply because they wanted money from these microtransactions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't play in DE: MD yet (and don't plan to play in Diablo), but I did beat Dead Space 3.
And I didn't find it grindy (I do remember games that are grindy xD). I just remember ridiculous last enemy, just like the one from Dead Space 2.
Seriously, who thought that invincible, immediately regenerating enemy chase sequence is a good idea? It completely ruined game experience for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
But the whole market thing did end up changing the game. While the Dead Space series was always kind actiony, I thought the inclusion of the market thing, and the way the crafting was handled ended up making the game worse. It's not a case where it broke the game, but it is a case where it ended up hurting it.
Comment has been collapsed.
an example of grinding is rise of the tomb raider. i completed the campaign to 100% and i didn't get all the cards. i couldn't even afford to buy them with ingame cash from achievements, so if i wanted to get all of them i had to grind like crazy, or pay.
yet, no one complained about this. maybe because no angry kid on youtube/twitch made a video bashing RoTTR. Β―\_(γ)_/Β―
Comment has been collapsed.
I honestly don't get it. Are you saying it's a good or bad thing that no one, in your mind, complained about grinding in RoTTR?
Comment has been collapsed.
I've not played RoTTR, but your description does make it sound like the inclusion of microtransactions ended up hurting the game for completionists. That sounds pretty bad to me, and I'm now far less inclined to buy the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't really go into cards that much but i %100'd campaign too. That game's achievements are grindy as hell even without cards so if you want to complete all achievements collecting cards would be easy as far as i see. Also i checked, there is one achievement for cards says 300 cards and i have 219. I think i can achieve that if i spend my spare money. There is also some hidden ones i don't know what they stand for maybe that's what Mully is talking about.
Comment has been collapsed.
The rune system in the first one seemed like it would have allowed for MTs as well. But they put them in the DLC. Can't remember if preorder DLC or what.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meh. I was never going to buy it anyway. Looks crap. Still a shitty thing to do, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
so you spend 60 bucks on a game but because you don't have the time to actually play it you throw even more money at them to get some progress and stuff you could just as well get by simply playing the game?
in what kind of world does that make sense?
well i guess some people just deserve to get milked for every dime they own.
Comment has been collapsed.
Paying for speed up progression in a single-player game is like paying some to spoiler the last episode of game of thrones every week.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd scream boycott but people are too stupid to stick to that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here's the deal: MT or no MT, it's going to come down to the storyline and gameplay of Shadow of War that decides if it will get positive reviews and sell well. I really want to play it, but I'm also not an idiot and haven't pre-ordered because I have a framed plaque with a $62.67 receipt for Dungeon Siege III on my wall to remind me daily not to pre-order. However, I loved the first two Dungeon Sieges as well as the first Middle-Earth with my only regret that I waited until the GOTY edition came out to buy ME:SoM (got a great deal, but I could have enjoyed it months earlier knowing how awesome it was). The second the retail version drops and official reviews start popping up for SoW, I'll be scouting them for any signs it's been ruined, but realistically I'm probably going to buy it based on what I know about it, the gameplay footage, the focus, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mass Effect: Stockings on Miranda the XXX movie ? :3
(Ouch, that DS 3 price sounds really hurtful. Still great to read that someone can wait a few days and make an informed decision on buying, even if a fan of the first SoM game)
Comment has been collapsed.
So microtransactions are forced now single player games? Like DLC is not enough? Well fuk you then, 1v1 after this fail!
Comment has been collapsed.
And basically for everyone who says ' who cares ?' My answer is : you and everyone should care. Every time shitty dev/publisher does this there must be attention to it and everyone should talk about it likenit's big news because once people will stop doing that , it will become a norm and then that will happen you will all suck big corporate cock even harder..simply because of ' whooo cares , bro?' attitude.
Comment has been collapsed.
Basic human reaction :
It doesn't concern me, only idiots are gonna get fooled. years later Damn it concern and arm me i should have cared.
Example : Trump. Future Example : Net Neutrality. Looping Example : Regulation on Banks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Trump, Net Neutrality and Regulation on Banks affect us because it's part of our lives.
Microtransactions are not since it's no required.
Comment has been collapsed.
it seems people care enough to express that though Β―_(γ)_/Β―
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, why should we care?
It's already a norm, so just buy a game and that's it. There's no requirement in paying for microtransactions.
Comment has been collapsed.
wait hasn't mordor shadow of war been out for ages?
Comment has been collapsed.
Shadows of Mordor has been out for ages. This is Shadows of War, the sequel.
Yes, the naming is confusing.
Comment has been collapsed.
they need to fire whomever names stuff there.
what ever happend to just adding ''2" to the name for sequels
Comment has been collapsed.
Where are the times when I couldn't beat first goblin in Gothic 2. So I wasn't even able to go down from starting tower, hence playing my game!
b
marvin
b
F2
ITPO_PERM_STR
ITPO_PERM_STR
ITPO_PERM_STR
ITPO_PERM_STR
ITPO_PERM_STR
ITPO_PERM_STR
ITPO_PERM_STR
ITPO_PERM_STR
ITPO_PERM_STR
Inventory => drink potions.
That's more like it! I also used kill to get rid of enemies I couldn't beat ; D
Now I'd have to pay for it :C Noob.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not even a full-priced AAA game. Those are 60 bucks. This game is 100 bucks because all the stuff they already cut out to make you pay for it more (remember when they developed DLC when the game was done, instead of while the game was worked on, or heck, was in early access?)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, I started it all when I drove down and picked up the Lord of Destruction expansion pack for D2. ;_;
Comment has been collapsed.
DLC isn't a measure of content, it's a term to define how the content is delivered.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe originally but this is not how it's used and you are most likely aware of this
Edit: Unless you're arguing that everything on Steam is DLC
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I know, but he is acting as if the definition of DLC is "minor content", when it can in fact be an entire expansion for a game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't agree. Even if there's no clear distinction between expansions and DLC, just like there isn't a clear distinction between long and short people, you are still able to make the distinction in most cases
Comment has been collapsed.
You can call it whatever you like, it's downloadable content for a pre-existing game.
Comment has been collapsed.
So what does this have to do with a distinction between DLC and expansions?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm saying Lord of Destruction would be a DLC today.
They might call it an expansion, but it's still DLC.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or, you might call it DLC but it's still an expansion?
Comment has been collapsed.
If it's downloadable content for a pre-existing game, it's DLC.
I could swear I've already said that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You also said it's a term to define how content is delivered. As I started out saying, there is a distinction between DLC and expansion even if it's not clear cut.
Comment has been collapsed.
Downloadable content (DLC) is additional content created for a released video game. It is distributed through the Internet
That would include expansions, if they're downloaded through the internet.
Expansions tend to be larger DLC, but if downloaded, they're DLC nonetheless.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find it amusing that this conversation started with your statement "DLC isn't a measure of content, it's a term to define how the content is delivered." and now you're saying that expansions tend to be larger DLC.
Anyway, it sort of looks like we can agree that there is some kind of distinction
Comment has been collapsed.
I find it amusing that you're taking what I originally said out of context. shrug
I didn't say DLC couldn't be large or small, I simply meant it's not all small bits of content like Horse Armor was (like Avidwriter implied), On the contrary, some of it is quite huge, like Tiny Tina's DLC for Borderlands 2.
DLC just means it's delivered via the internet, regardless of size.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is quoting your whole post in the same thread where you said it, taking what you said out of context. It doesn't get any more in context than this
Comment has been collapsed.
DLC isn't a measure of content, it's a term to define how the content is delivered.
That seems to be the "comment in question." I've explained it numerous times. You want to insist that there's a difference between expansions and DLC, and I'm saying there isn't a difference if the content is downloaded. It's all DLC - big, small, huge, tiny, horse armor, or Tiny Tina's. Any additional content for a pre-existing game downloaded via the internet is DLC by definition.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/378648/The_Witcher_3_Wild_Hunt__Blood_and_Wine/
Top of the page - Downloadable Content. Lord of Destruction would have been (and actually is now) DLC, had it been available for download back then.
I'm not sure what you're even debating here, other than some distinction between expansion and DLC that doesn't exist (since it's all downloaded these days).
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing else than what you state in your last sentence. You also didn't address how you were taken out of context
Edit: I'd agree that all expansions could technically be called DLC but not that all DLC are expansions, hence there's a distinction. I hope this makes it easier to understand.
Comment has been collapsed.
He was taken out of context because from the very start he considered expansions dlcs (granted the said expansion could not be downloaded at that time) but you ignored that comment... hence took him out of context.
EDIT: So all expansions can be dlc... that's exactly what he was telling the original poster who claimed that expansions are not dlc. Nowadays almost all expansions are dlc... so the original poster is the one with the wrong statement
Comment has been collapsed.
This is not even a point of contention.
Edit: He is claiming that "expansions were different" and I am claiming that there's a distinction between expansions and DLC and this is probably what he was referring to as well. If you and Tzaar can't see a distinction between DLC and expansions we just have to agree to disagree.
Comment has been collapsed.
So what did you find amusing inbetween the "DLC isn't a measure of content, it's a term to define how the content is delivered." and the "expansions tend to be larger DLC."? They're both true statements and the second actually strengthens the first?
Comment has been collapsed.
The fact that DLC isn't just a delivery method the way we use it and that there's a content scale where larger tends to point to expansion. This whole thing boils down to if there's a distinction or not and "expansions tend to be larger DLC" points in this direction.
There are two different things with the label DLC though, one is the content delivery system and the other is the content that would be an expansion if it was "large" enough to qualify.
Comment has been collapsed.
Expansions ARE larger dlc. Anything extra to the base game is dlc in this day. Horse armor? dlc. Fallout 4 Far harbor? dlc. Yes Tzaar started by saying dlc refers to downloading regardless of size (which isn't wrong... see fallout 4 far harbor as an example which has the dlc tag on steam but it's basically what we used to call expansion) but also clarified that everything post base game is dlc. Regadless you're right dlcs aren't necessarily expansions BUT all expansions are dlcs.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find it amusing that the conversation started with him calling the diablo 2 expansion a dlc but you prolly missed that post right? It's right above the one you quoted
Comment has been collapsed.
@ Nightshifty - well, technically there was no "DLC" yet (but it would be DLC today!). :P
edit: correction - there may have been, but I had dial-up and didn't bother downloading anything
Anyway, that's how I started the great DLC landslide of 2017. By approving of additional content for a game i liked. ;_;
IF ONLY I'D KNOWN WHAT HELL I WOULD RAIN UPON THIS EARTH!
(eh, I'd still do it anyway -- it was a damned good game)
Comment has been collapsed.
I was pointing out that you from the start claimed that expansions are still dlcs in your book... while he's saying that you claimed they weren't at first and now claim they are
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, I'm just being a smartass. :X
It's pretty much what led to DLC. At least you got the gist. The internet just facilitated things since no one would drive to Gamestop to pick up the "Horse Armor Expansion."
Comment has been collapsed.
If you ever paid for DLC you are to blame for this! Congrats!
Yep, I started it all when I drove down and picked up the Lord of Destruction expansion pack for D2. ;_;
I find it amusing that this conversation started with your statement "DLC isn't a measure of content, it's a term to define how the content is delivered." and now you're saying that expansions tend to be larger DLC.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess I won't be bothered if there's an option to completely hide micro-transactions.
I don't want to pay for a game and be nagged every time I launch with MT adverts.
Let it just be a toggle in the option menu and be done with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
one more before going to bed ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
"See those people buying Horse Armor? Yeah... no one cares"
10 years later - entire DLC focused industry.
Oops?
"See these people voting Brexit? Haha, no one cares"
Shit, they WON?
Oops?
"Lol, Trump in office. Haha. Well, no one cares."
He WON?
Oops?
Etc.
Actually these past few years are filled with "no one cares" and then suddenly things did not go as seemingly planned and then they do care. Too late, too little.
Comment has been collapsed.
So in line #1 you say they're the result of democracy, but in line #2 people apparently didn't choose for Brexit/Trump.
Must have missed the votes/election and have a shifted view of democracy where exactly what's voted for happens.
Comment has been collapsed.
The people didn't choose Trump. Hillary won the popular vote.
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't that the whole point though?
People go "who cares?" when something's actually happening (like micro's here) and then when it's too late to turn it around having to live with it, it's "what happens after we've made our choice"; too late.
And it's not like we'll have a choice when every AAA+ dev starts adding micro's if this is a success. Kinda... what my point was with the orginal reply.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even if they add micro to every single game you can ALWAYS ignore them and play the game without them. Same with dlcs
Comment has been collapsed.
It's like you didn't read a single post I wrote about games being balanced around micro's maximum profit rather than just added to them.
:(
cries
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't change the fact you can play without them... no matter how much they try to temp you with them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Until they cross the line. Which they will, eventually.
Also "play" becomes debatable if all is based around the desire to sell you the most micro's. As I said, load up Facebook. See for yourself how beloved "micro-transactions balanced" games are.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that no matter what they offer in micros and how they change the game you can STILL PLAY IT WITHOUT THEM?
Comment has been collapsed.
Cause the status quo, which doesn't even really exist as is, does not infact the entire future entails.
I assume you still haven't visited facebook to see how your 60 euro AAA+ game may be balanced in the future?
Comment has been collapsed.
There is nothing to see on facebook. Those are entirely different type of games and an entirely different situation... it's like saying "damn those arcades and their microtransactions where you have to pay a quarter each time you want to play the game"
Next you're going to say that's exactly what the future of $60 AAA games is... we're going to have to insert $ bills in the locked pc box to boot up the game because that's how arcades do it...
EDIT: ALSO the status quo is that no matter what micro transactions offer you can still play the game without them.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, those are games MADE to get the most money out of you through micro's.
You know, like WB will do now, and if successfull future games will follow and try much more aggressively?
But apparently that's STILL way over your head. sigh
Comment has been collapsed.
What's over your head is that those facebook games CAN STILL BE PLAYED WITHOUT MICRO FFS. Yes it will take more time to reach goals for you who refuses to pay compared to those who don't mind paying.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if not? If microtransactions will act like a paywall? Like for example, in the new Elder Scrolls, you can level only to 20, and all levels after that are bought with microtransactions. Or you can have a horse, sure, but it barely walks faster than you and has no carry inventory, unless you buy the Horse Upgrade Bonus Pack for a mere $2.99. For each character you start, naturally. What is the point where people stop "not caring"?
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you play the new elder scrolls? If you do have you bought any extra lvls? If you didn't you're already doing what you need to do to prevent it. If not enough people pay for it the game's population over lvl 20 will dwindle the ones who are past that point will get bored... the game will die.
If you did buy extra levels question your own actions rather than question those who provide you with the choice to take those actions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually in line 1 he says that regardless if you wanted dlcs or not you can still chose not to buy them.
In line 2 he said regardless if you wanted trump as president or brexit to happen you're forced to accept them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, and my point was thus that we're now in stage 1 (voting) and once we move to stage 2 (the result) it's too late and everyone has to deal with it.
So, my analogy worked as intended?
Comment has been collapsed.
But your analogy is that if micros happen in every game than you won't be able to play games without them... which is not the case? So your analogy was bad? Yes it was
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm so glad we already establised how post-SoW micro-transactiosn influence gaming already.
You know, like those predictions Trump would fail, Brexit would fail. Yeah, remember those predictions? So far everything is still on schedule.
Comment has been collapsed.
But... microtransactions ARE a thing in a lot of games these days... none of them FORCE you to use micro. There's no prediction... it's what's happening.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you a lot for that one! how to send the money?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ironically, the whole Jurassic Park disaster that is the crux of the movie was caused by Nedry selling out, and could have been averted if someone cared.
Or not, since a key theme of the first movie was that Hammond was never in control, and that life would find a way regardless. In that respect, Nedry's industrial espionage before the park actually opened may have meant fewer people lost their lives than if the park failed in operation, as we saw in Jurassic World.
Comment has been collapsed.
This thread truly is a worthy nominee in the category "topic with the most redundant and pointless tantrums 2017".
:P
Comment has been collapsed.
Whatever you do, don't express like or dislike for DLC.
Just back away slowly, and when you get the chance .... run like hell. :X
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh no, I won't let you drag me into this... I'm just here for some classic guerilla-style trolling, there's no way you can nail me down. ;D
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/08/07/middle-earth-shadow-of-war-details-microtransactions/
Who could have thought? ...
Just a reminder but this is a fully priced single player game.
EDIT : Brilliant video from Jim on the matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TXWdyrqFP8
EDIT 2 : Seems like WB is not done with being biggest fcking assholes in the gaming indrustry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laqx3C3HA4M
Comment has been collapsed.