PDA

View Full Version : Don't Botch This Up and Screw Us With More Microtransactions...



Xyyth
10-01-2019, 11:16 PM
Just give us good games. Go make a mobile app if you want billions of dollars. Leave PC and PS4 alone.

AnimusLover
10-02-2019, 12:18 AM
Sadly, I can already see the cosmetic microtransactions in my head and how intrusive they're going to be.

MindjackPWNS
10-02-2019, 02:42 AM
Yeah, I wish paid games didn't have microtransactions. Cosmetics on F2P is tolerable but it sucks on AAA full price games.

SofaJockey
10-03-2019, 07:54 AM
More microtransactions?

I don't recall Watch Dogs games having predatory MTX offerings?

I would expect something fairly benign along the lines of Assassin's Creed.

MicroC4
10-03-2019, 01:15 PM
It will probably be like the MTX in WD2. Hopeful not as bad.

N7AVEN6ER
10-03-2019, 09:15 PM
Dear Ubisoft,
I have been a fan of you guys since the original Assassin's Creed. I have played every Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell, Watch Dogs, Rayman and Tom Clancy game up to Future Soldier because you ruined the most recent ones. Electronic Arts owns my favorite franchise of all time in Mass Effect. They own about 40% of my entire childhood. I no longer purchased games associated with Electronic Arts and it sucks. When I saw the watchdog's legion trailer, I've never been more excited for Ubisoft game. However, recently you guys have shown how little you care about making great games and how you only care about money. I really do not want to stop playing Ubisoft games, you guys are the only AAA developers I have left because Activision, EA and Bethesda have all lost my business. I am very excited for Watch Dogs Legion, it's Innovation alone has got me very excited. I really really want to buy it. However, if you guys do the same thing to Watch Dogs Legion that you've done with Assassin's Creed Odyssey or Ghost Recon Breakpoint then I will have no choice but to not buy the game. If you guys read this, you probably won't but if you do you're probably thinking he's only just one fan and we're not going to lose much money but I guarantee you I'm not the only one. Please stop doing what you're doing to the games that we love and please do not ruin Watch Dogs Legion.

Your Loyal Fan.
Mark.

Frankie_Drums
10-04-2019, 01:50 PM
Agreed, I'm not buying Breakpoint because Ubisoft's monetization has gone too far, I'll abandon their games entirely if Watch Dogs: Legion and Gods & Monsters continues the trend.

secretzrus
10-04-2019, 02:54 PM
Yeah, reviewers are raking Breakpoint over the coals about how bad the monetization is, pretty much on the level of what you see on a free to play mobile game. Ubisoft Montreal, this is your chance to play the hero and save Ubisoft as a whole from the downward spiral Ubisoft Paris has set the company on with Breakpoint! You already made a good step in the right direction by opting to not require an online connection for solo play...not going nuts with the monetization would seriously make you golden in the consumer's eyes.

MindjackPWNS
10-07-2019, 10:08 PM
Yeah, I hope Legion will avoid massive microtransactions that are predatory and completely uncalled for. Sure, a few isn't too bad, but I wish games would go back to no microtransactions if it's already a full price game.

LegendOfGta
10-08-2019, 04:06 PM
Yeah, I hope Legion will avoid massive microtransactions that are predatory and completely uncalled for. Sure, a few isn't too bad, but I wish games would go back to no microtransactions if it's already a full price game.

Gone are the days of no microtransactions. I was a proud part of that era. It will surely be missed...

If you're going to add MICROTRANSACTIONS, make it cosmetic-based. That way players don't gain advantages from buying stuff with real money. The definition of P2W.

SofaJockey
10-08-2019, 06:10 PM
However, if you guys do the same thing to Watch Dogs Legion that you've done with Assassin's Creed Odyssey or Ghost Recon Breakpoint then I will have no choice but to not buy the game.

You may be loyal, but there's not much sense in your point, to be fair.

Neither Odyssey nor Breakpoint have predatory or pay-2-win microtransactions that I'm aware of.

I realize there are people jumping on the fake outrage bandwagon, but MTX's in both games are entirely skippable and follow a formula Ubi has followed for years.

I expect Legion will follow a similar approach, which will be fine.

ballon009
10-18-2019, 04:27 AM
Won’t happen. Ubisoft profit margin showed that although they only used it a few times. They made close to 15% of their profit from micro transactions. And that rose with the division launch and AC OD.

Ubisoft won’t take them out now as they make up almost 23% of the profit.

Aka forget it.

Ubisoft has succumb to the poison of mobile games. Idea that 99% of profit comes from 1% of whales. It is why games like star citizens exist. Always be a person who is weird enough to buy into it. It is why these games in main lines have been getting more aggressive with it.





You want to get rid of it... you should have supported my boycott of AC OD. Yet you guys shunned me like a pariaia. Now don’t complain when they go ballz to the wall micro transaction

Frankie_Drums
10-18-2019, 01:23 PM
Gone are the days of no microtransactions. I was a proud part of that era. It will surely be missed...

If you're going to add MICROTRANSACTIONS, make it cosmetic-based. That way players don't gain advantages from buying stuff with real money. The definition of P2W.


You may be loyal, but there's not much sense in your point, to be fair.

Neither Odyssey nor Breakpoint have predatory or pay-2-win microtransactions that I'm aware of.

I realize there are people jumping on the fake outrage bandwagon, but MTX's in both games are entirely skippable and follow a formula Ubi has followed for years.

I expect Legion will follow a similar approach, which will be fine.

Couldn't disagree more. This seems to be the crux of your argument--that the MTX are not mandatory and therefore acceptable. I disagree because their existence lessens the value of the base game and creates "haves" and "have-nots."

"Looking cool" is an important part of what sells a game. Something in a gameplay trailer catches your eye, and often it's the way the main character moves and interacts with the world. Most of the promotional videos for Assassins Creed: Origins, for example, featured a cool mummy outfit. Imagine my disappointment when I bought the game and found out this was locked behind a paywall. Most of the costumes dropped/looted in the game are actually different color variants of shoddy-looking rags.

The only way Ubisoft can charge any money for these clothes is if they have a perceived value. And the only way they can do that is if the game has less value without them. I posit that Ubisoft deliberately made my character look crappy so I'd feel the need to spend real money to buy a new outfit. No, I didn't HAVE to buy an outfit, and I did not make the purchase. But the existence of the paid outfit made my experience worse, even though I didn't buy it, and even though it was optional.

I can accept the model in a free game--make me look drab in comparison to others so I'm inclined to make a purchase. But in the case of Ubisoft games, which are full retail price and have special editions, pre-order bonuses, season passes, post-launch DLC, statues, etc., to ask for MORE money from consumers who have already paid is unacceptable and insulting. ALL content should be part of the purchase price.



Won’t happen. Ubisoft profit margin showed that although they only used it a few times. They made close to 15% of their profit from micro transactions. And that rose with the division launch and AC OD.

Ubisoft won’t take them out now as they make up almost 23% of the profit.

Aka forget it.

Ubisoft has succumb to the poison of mobile games. Idea that 99% of profit comes from 1% of whales. It is why games like star citizens exist. Always be a person who is weird enough to buy into it. It is why these games in main lines have been getting more aggressive with it.
Not true at all. Every time a company tries to implement shady practices, such as locked on-disc content, or forcing players who bought a used copy to buy a code to play the game, or the addition of draconian DRM, or forcing consoles to always be online, there are a bunch of people who say "That's how it is now" and throw their hands up in the air. Fortunately for your wallet, there are others such as myself who push back and defend our rights as consumers so we don't get ripped off. And that's what we're doing here as well.

ballon009
10-19-2019, 03:36 AM
I never given up. It just you pick your fights and resist when there are chances. We had a chance, AC OD was that chance. No one cares about watch dogs. No one will care if you boycott watchdogs. It’s not a popular game.

Most of their profit comes from AC. That is their profit. Not Division, not wildlamds. Not watch dogs. It’s Assassins Creed, when I brought the fight to them everyone was afraid to stop them. Now it’s to late. Every plebe and his mom bought AC Od. And they managed to milk a lot of whales.

It was enough to cement it forever.

Only hope were we can make a stand will be with next AC game.

SofaJockey
10-20-2019, 07:49 PM
I don't think the current MTX model is a problem.

And if it keeps a company that makes games I enjoy playing healthy, so be it.

I'm not giving up playing fun games on a pointless crusade.

My pre-order will be going in on the next AC regardless.

booter.botter
10-20-2019, 10:30 PM
Sorry for the off topic.
Planning to pre-order soon but I wanted to know some clarifications in regards the date.

The standard one for PC means it will be released on March 6, 2020? Or is that date for the 3 days early access of the ultimate and gold editions?

RazorBlade185
10-21-2019, 01:28 AM
Perhaps I buy not enough games but I am not completely sure what this topic is about and why people are so upset about it. AFAIK there are several different price levels for this game and it is clear in advance what you get for which price. Well, at this moment not exactly but I am sure that when we get closer to the release date it will be a bit more clear. Perhaps there might be some outfits that you can buy or some skins for your cars. It might be just me but I don't care about those. It does not make the game more fun. Sure if there are extra story lines then that might be a reason for me to buy that. But I consider it normal that if you get more options in your software that you pay extra. The home version of Windows is also cheaper then the pro versions, which is cheaper then the enterprise version. More options cost more money.

Although it is a different story, I am much more against intrusive DRM. I always buy my games and I have no pirated stuf of anything but that means that e.g. games take much longer to load then necessary because it is checking your system. I payed a lot to get pretty fast hardware. I consider it a waste of money to build a PC that is twice as fast as other hardware and then the software developer puts in so many checks so it loads in double the amount of time. Then we are no longer talking about micro transactions but then we are talking about a huge amount of wasted money. I don't mind if a game needs to be online because I can't imagine to disconnect my PC ever from the Internet but I can imagine that if you live in an area with less stable Internet that this might be an issue.

Nerdman2018
10-21-2019, 04:16 AM
Sorry for the off topic.
Planning to pre-order soon but I wanted to know some clarifications in regards the date.

The standard one for PC means it will be released on March 6, 2020? Or is that date for the 3 days early access of the ultimate and gold editions?

I'm saying this from the console version but March 6 is the release date for normal versions and Gold and Ultimate editions give you the game on March 3rd. The main reason why I'm planning to get Gold to be honest.

booter.botter
10-22-2019, 02:30 AM
Thank you so much!

Frankie_Drums
10-22-2019, 03:53 PM
I never given up. It just you pick your fights and resist when there are chances. We had a chance, AC OD was that chance. No one cares about watch dogs. No one will care if you boycott watchdogs. It’s not a popular game.

Most of their profit comes from AC. That is their profit. Not Division, not wildlamds. Not watch dogs. It’s Assassins Creed, when I brought the fight to them everyone was afraid to stop them. Now it’s to late. Every plebe and his mom bought AC Od. And they managed to milk a lot of whales.

It was enough to cement it forever.

Only hope were we can make a stand will be with next AC game.
Nope, not true at all. Every purchase you make matters. Throwing your money away on anything is a waste.

I don't think the current MTX model is a problem.

And if it keeps a company that makes games I enjoy playing healthy, so be it.

I'm not giving up playing fun games on a pointless crusade.

My pre-order will be going in on the next AC regardless.
And if you take that position, you're going to continue to get less for your dollar. You're going to find more and more content locked behind paywalls. Even worse, in order to incentivize you to make purchases, your gameplay is going to be replaced with a grind, and you're going to have to pay additional money to even enjoy the game.
I'm saying this from the console version but March 6 is the release date for normal versions and Gold and Ultimate editions give you the game on March 3rd. The main reason why I'm planning to get Gold to be honest.
Let's call this what it really is. Games release on Tuesdays, so if you pay the additional money you're allowed to play the game the day it releases. If you don't pay the additional money you have to wait and play it three days late.

RazorBlade185
10-22-2019, 11:12 PM
Frankie,

I don't know much about economics but I do know that there is a sweet spot for selling about anything. If a company charges to much then people won't buy it and if you ask not enough then you will go bankrupt. What Ubisoft is already doing is charging a relative lafrge amount of money for things that don't matter that much. Yes a nice outfit is good to have but the game is not suddenly very different if you play in a different outfit. Also indirectly charging extra for 3 days earlier acces is not going to change the game a lot.

It seems you want to spend your money wisely. Of course I can't look in to your wallet but I have the feeling that you are not Bill Gates. For you, or at least people with a limmited gaming budget, this should be a great solution. Let me explain why. Lets say that somebody whith a limmited budget buys a game for 60 dollar. For that money he gets the base game without any extra's. That base game is however good for far more then 90% of the game development time. They nearly created the whole city of London for you with all the textures, game mechanics, etc. then for 30 dollar extra you get a few more things but these items are extremely overpriced if you compare it with what you get for those 60 dollar. In other words. The people who want everything also pay for the people who just buy the base game.

Sure Ubisoft knows that if they only sold one version of the game, that they can't charge more then those 60 dollar for the base game. If they charge more, then less people will buy it. If they don't optimize their profit then they will lose the competition with other game developers. That is how economics work in a free market.

Like I said, I don't know anything about your personal financial situation so I will keep it very general. You have all kinds of customers. Don't think that everybody is the same. There are young people with little to spend and there are man who just bought a nice Mercedes for their wife's birthday. As you can understand, it is very likely that the young adult with little to spend will most likely buy the base version and the person who don't have a problem with spending many thousands of dollars on a birthday present will probably just get everything. That person is paying is however in a way also paying for the people who just bought the base version.

What you should keep in mind is that a commercial company in a strong competitive market has to optimize their profit. There is no other way. If they don't do that then they are out of business very soon. They don't overcharge you, even if that feels that way. If they overcharge they simply don't sell enough copies and then they are losing money. If they undercharge then they will lose the battle with other game developers.

Frankie_Drums
10-24-2019, 12:30 AM
RazorBlade, Ubisoft had over $2 billion in sales in FY19 (https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-05-15/ubisoft-entertainment-ubisoft-reports-full-year-2018-19-earnings-figures). Let's not pretend they're "going to go out of business soon" if they don't charge us full retail price for a game and charge us additionally for microtransactions, special editions, season passes and DLC. You're a consumer and your role is to maximize the value of your purchases. Please stop making excuses for billion dollar companies and start fighting for the value for your dollar.

SofaJockey
10-24-2019, 07:47 AM
Amusing as this discussion is, until the game launches we don't know.

An expectation that there will be no microtransactions is unrealistic as that's a core part of Ubi's commercial model which pays for the game. A fake outrage protest that the game contains any microtransactions would be both lame and pointless, IF...

Those microtransactions were not pay2win, did not change the underlying mechanics of the game and were optional missable fluff.

However, Ubi should take care not to cross the line and emulate publishers like Bethesda (comes to mind) who break their game to support a predatory MTX economy.

So long as they stay on the positive side, with no worse than has been included in AC and Watch Dogs previously, then personally I'm fine with it because it funds the games.

RazorBlade185
10-24-2019, 01:44 PM
You're a consumer and your role is to maximize the value of your purchases. Please stop making excuses for billion dollar companies and start fighting for the value for your dollar.

Why would I? Life is to short to worry about the price of video games. It is not my role to maximize the value of my purchases. When we are talking about entertainment it is my role to have some fun. So if I worry about something then it is the quality of video games and not the price.

Frankie_Drums
10-25-2019, 02:22 AM
Why would I? Life is to short to worry about the price of video games. It is not my role to maximize the value of my purchases. When we are talking about entertainment it is my role to have some fun. So if I worry about something then it is the quality of video games and not the price.

Konami only offered one save slot with Metal Gear Survive--if you wanted to buy 3 more save slots it cost $10. Metro: Last Light and Zelda: Breath of the Wild on shipped their games with one difficulty and Hard mode was bundled as part of paid DLC. EA tried implementing an online pass so they could gate off access for used games and Xbox One was originally going to charge you FULL PRICE to borrow a friend's game if you wanted to play it on your own Gamertag. Ubisoft is locking more and more content, from levelling to cosmetic gear, behind paywalls.

Every time one of these issues (or others, such as locked on-disc content or DRM or gating multiplayer communities off by who does and doesn't have DLC maps) has come up, people such as yourself sit by and idly allow it to happen while people such as myself fight the good fight on your behalf. It would be refreshing if, just once, your side would say, "You know what? You're right, we're being taken advantage of, and instead of just pissing my money away, I'm going to make a purchase that's valuable. Because if I don't take a stand now, I'm going to get less and less for my money and games are going to all be a boring grind."

xenon8000
10-25-2019, 08:58 AM
Breakpoints MTX and seeing VIP booster on Legion's screenshot have been the reason to cancel my pre-order.
My money is the only vote I have against the implementation of excessive microtransactions and looting.

SofaJockey
10-25-2019, 12:04 PM
Breakpoints MTX and seeing VIP booster on Legion's screenshot have been the reason to cancel my pre-order.
My money is the only vote I have against the implementation of excessive microtransactions and looting.

That's your choice, but if you consider these 'excessive' you'll soon be playing no games.

A pointless and irrelevant protest in my view.

Frankie_Drums
10-25-2019, 04:05 PM
That's your choice, but if you consider these 'excessive' you'll soon be playing no games.

A pointless and irrelevant protest in my view.
OR we'll push back on publishers like we did all the other times we were being taken advantage of and consumers will win.

It's very easy to tell people their protests are pointless and irrelevant. Being a doormat takes no effort at all.

SofaJockey
10-25-2019, 04:44 PM
OR we'll push back on publishers like we did all the other times we were being taken advantage of and consumers will win.

It's very easy to tell people their protests are pointless and irrelevant. Being a doormat takes no effort at all.

It's just practical, I'll take my custom elsewhere if MTX's gate important features, make it unfair or change the game mechanics. The Metal Gear example you gave is of a MTX that is predatory.

But if the microtransactions are benign as they have been in Ubi's games, for additional bits of fluff, then I'll be having fun playing the games. Do your protest if you want, that's fine.

RazorBlade185
10-26-2019, 12:50 AM
Konami only offered one save slot with Metal Gear Survive--if you wanted to buy 3 more save slots it cost $10. Metro: Last Light and Zelda: Breath of the Wild on shipped their games with one difficulty and Hard mode was bundled as part of paid DLC. EA tried implementing an online pass so they could gate off access for used games and Xbox One was originally going to charge you FULL PRICE to borrow a friend's game if you wanted to play it on your own Gamertag. Ubisoft is locking more and more content, from levelling to cosmetic gear, behind paywalls.

Every time one of these issues (or others, such as locked on-disc content or DRM or gating multiplayer communities off by who does and doesn't have DLC maps) has come up, people such as yourself sit by and idly allow it to happen while people such as myself fight the good fight on your behalf. It would be refreshing if, just once, your side would say, "You know what? You're right, we're being taken advantage of, and instead of just pissing my money away, I'm going to make a purchase that's valuable. Because if I don't take a stand now, I'm going to get less and less for my money and games are going to all be a boring grind."

What are we really talking about? Paying something like $10 on top of the regulair retail price? That is roughly 15 minutes work. I don't even consider it work. I work in the IT and work is fun for me. It is not like hard labour but just clicking and typing as I am doing right now. Give me just a sensible reason why I would protest so loudly to pay 10 dollar less? What did you achieve with your protest? If you would work instead of protest, would that not be far more efficient?

Frankie_Drums
10-26-2019, 01:43 AM
What are we really talking about? Paying something like $10 on top of the regulair retail price? That is roughly 15 minutes work. I don't even consider it work. I work in the IT and work is fun for me. It is not like hard labour but just clicking and typing as I am doing right now. Give me just a sensible reason why I would protest so loudly to pay 10 dollar less? What did you achieve with your protest? If you would work instead of protest, would that not be far more efficient?
You're trivializing. It's not $10 for one game, it's thousands of dollars over hundreds of games for decades to come. Games will be ruined if we allow this.

SofaJockey
10-26-2019, 06:10 AM
You're trivializing. It's not $10 for one game, it's thousands of dollars over hundreds of games for decades to come. Games will be ruined if we allow this.

No, you're exaggerating in my view.

Either way, buy the games or don't, that's your choice. I'll continue to enjoy these games. If Ubi continues with their benign MTX policy I see no problem for them.

RazorBlade185
10-26-2019, 12:39 PM
You're trivializing. It's not $10 for one game, it's thousands of dollars over hundreds of games for decades to come. Games will be ruined if we allow this.
Why would I care about thousands of dollars if it is for hundreds of games that are released in decades. First of all I don't have time to play so many games. I buy and play perhaps 2-3 games per year. And even if I would play more then 30 games per year and we are talking about 4 decades and I would be overcharged 30 dollar per games then we are still talking about pocketchange to me. Again why would I protest?

secretzrus
10-26-2019, 02:42 PM
Ubisoft went a bit too far with the microtransactions for many people, especially when bundled with other stuff people took issue with. What I'm guessing is Ubisoft will dial microtransactions back to where they last seemed at the very least begrudgingly acceptable, which means back to AC Odyssey levels, and then slowly ramp back up in this weird economical version of the Weeping Angels, just instead of them killing us when we aren't looking, they'll just be trying to bury us with microtransactions until the backlash starts up again and starts to eat into projected sales.

Frankie_Drums
10-26-2019, 03:45 PM
Why would I care about thousands of dollars if it is for hundreds of games that are released in decades. First of all I don't have time to play so many games. I buy and play perhaps 2-3 games per year. And even if I would play more then 30 games per year and we are talking about 4 decades and I would be overcharged 30 dollar per games then we are still talking about pocketchange to me. Again why would I protest?
You're missing the point. You're not only going to be charged $30 per game. You're going to be charged $150+ per game because they're going to gate everything behind paywalls if we allow them to. There are already "whales" who are paying over $10,000 dollars on a single mobile game. If games become designed solely to get people to grind and then pay to avoid the grind, they're going to suck for most of us. I'll have to stop playing games then, and I don't want that.

As for the "$30 is pocketchange to me" comment, a fool and his money are soon parted. If your argument is "I don't care about the value of my dollar" then just remove yourself from the conversation because you've invalidated your own opinion.

Frankie_Drums
10-26-2019, 03:47 PM
slowly ramp back up in this weird economical version of the Weeping AngelsLove this analogy.

SofaJockey
10-26-2019, 09:42 PM
Love this analogy.

I'll certainly agree it is a good one.

Don't blink!

RazorBlade185
10-26-2019, 11:39 PM
You're missing the point. You're not only going to be charged $30 per game. You're going to be charged $150+ per game because they're going to gate everything behind paywalls if we allow them to. There are already "whales" who are paying over $10,000 dollars on a single mobile game. If games become designed solely to get people to grind and then pay to avoid the grind, they're going to suck for most of us. I'll have to stop playing games then, and I don't want that.

As for the "$30 is pocketchange to me" comment, a fool and his money are soon parted. If your argument is "I don't care about the value of my dollar" then just remove yourself from the conversation because you've invalidated your own opinion.

You keep changing what we are talking about. Yes, I do have problem with it when a game costs me 10,000 dollar. No I don't mind if you can buy a few extra optional skins for a few extra dollars. There is a huge difference between those two things.

I already explained that there is a limit what people are prepared to pay. If you go above that limit then people don't buy it and if you sell your game very cheap then you are out of business very soon. You have to keep in mind that most people have a limit. For each individual that limit is different. Bill Gates earned 10,000 dollar in a few seconds so he might be willing to spend 10,000 dollar on a game. Most teenagers have to work perhaps a few days to buy a game. If you make your game two times as expensive then those kids will simple buy another game. People have budgets. The game industrie has some healthy competition so a lot of people already do what you are describing and that is voting with your wallet. If something is to expensive then they will simply buy something else. If in the end all the gamestudios would use microtransactions and all the gamers don't like that then there has to be only one studio who develops games without microtransactions and they have all the customers.

So far my experience with Ubisoft is good with regard to microtransactions. Perhaps that changed recently. Last game that bought from Ubisoft was Anno 1800 and it is a blast. I know that they made a deal with Epic and Anno 1800 was just before that. It is very well possible that Epic had as say in the pricing model of the game. I don't know. So far I bought 2 Watch Dogs titles and I don't think that I am overcharged for those games.

LegendOfGta
10-28-2019, 05:58 AM
You have two options:
-grind your @$$ off trying to obtain the items you want
-purchase it and have the satisfaction of contributing to the $h1tty business model that companies have created for the gaming industry

One way or another, you still lose, just depends how much you prefer to lose: your time or your money. You can always get more money but you can never get more time...

SofaJockey
10-28-2019, 09:16 AM
You can always get more money but you can never get more time...

If it's fun, it's time well spent.

If it's not fun, don't do it.

Frankie_Drums
10-28-2019, 03:19 PM
You keep changing what we are talking about. Yes, I do have problem with it when a game costs me 10,000 dollar. No I don't mind if you can buy a few extra optional skins for a few extra dollars. There is a huge difference between those two things.

I already explained that there is a limit what people are prepared to pay. If you go above that limit then people don't buy it and if you sell your game very cheap then you are out of business very soon. You have to keep in mind that most people have a limit. For each individual that limit is different. Bill Gates earned 10,000 dollar in a few seconds so he might be willing to spend 10,000 dollar on a game. Most teenagers have to work perhaps a few days to buy a game. If you make your game two times as expensive then those kids will simple buy another game. People have budgets. The game industrie has some healthy competition so a lot of people already do what you are describing and that is voting with your wallet. If something is to expensive then they will simply buy something else. If in the end all the gamestudios would use microtransactions and all the gamers don't like that then there has to be only one studio who develops games without microtransactions and they have all the customers.

So far my experience with Ubisoft is good with regard to microtransactions. Perhaps that changed recently. Last game that bought from Ubisoft was Anno 1800 and it is a blast. I know that they made a deal with Epic and Anno 1800 was just before that. It is very well possible that Epic had as say in the pricing model of the game. I don't know. So far I bought 2 Watch Dogs titles and I don't think that I am overcharged for those games.

I'm only saying one thing: if you are charged a base price for a game, everything released for the game should be included in that price. And what's happening is the opposite: more and more items and gameplay options are being locked behind paywalls. The more we allow them to charge us for, the less meat we'll get on the game. And as we're seeing from Ubi rescheduling WD:L and G&M, people are voting with their wallets and microtransactions may be on their way out. We just need the last holdouts, such as yourself, to acknowledge that all MTX are anti-consumer and that you shouldn't be nickel-and-dimed.

SofaJockey
10-28-2019, 03:26 PM
I'm only saying one thing: if you are charged a base price for a game, everything released for the game should be included in that price. And what's happening is the opposite: more and more items and gameplay options are being locked behind paywalls. The more we allow them to charge us for, the less meat we'll get on the game. And as we're seeing from Ubi rescheduling WD:L and G&M, people are voting with their wallets and microtransactions may be on their way out. We just need the last holdouts, such as yourself, to acknowledge that all MTX are anti-consumer and that you shouldn't be nickel-and-dimed.

No gameplay options should be locked behind a paywall, the minimum expectation is that you should be able to play the game fully.

So no pay2win, no paid storage, better weapons, gear or enhanced game mechanics.

But cosmetic fluff? No biggie, publishers have to fund their game and I see no sign of that going away, quite the reverse.

Frankie_Drums
10-28-2019, 07:48 PM
But cosmetic fluff? No biggie, publishers have to fund their game and I see no sign of that going away, quite the reverse.
You may dismiss cosmetics as "fluff," but they are absolutely part of gameplay and charging additionally for them is reprehensible.

As for you seeing "no sign of that going away," people like you said the same about DRM, and online passes, and loot boxes, and locked on-disc content, etc.. "That's just the way it is now, it's not a big deal and it doesn't break my bank," you'd say as you kept throwing money away. Fortunately for you, people like me fight on your behalf so we (collectively as a community) don't get ripped off. I don't expect you to fight alongside with me, but couldn't you get out of the way instead of taking body shots on behalf of the billion dollar company with its hands in your pockets?

SofaJockey
10-28-2019, 09:51 PM
I don't expect you to fight alongside with me, but couldn't you get out of the way instead of taking body shots on behalf of the billion dollar company with its hands in your pockets?

I think there's a matter of perspective here.

No issue with DRM if it doesn't harm performance.
Online passes are fine if additional online content is funded that way.

'It depends' covers on-disc content, not that physical discs are likely to be with us long.

Not reasonable are pay2win mechanics and the guts of the game paywalled.

What I don't find acceptable is an outrage storm over mild MTXs that fund ongoing online content. There is a gradation from not ok, to iffy to fine and I'll lend my support and quibble with the outrage accordingly.

There's nuance.

Frankie_Drums
10-29-2019, 01:52 AM
I think there's a matter of perspective here.

No issue with DRM if it doesn't harm performance.
Online passes are fine if additional online content is funded that way.

'It depends' covers on-disc content, not that physical discs are likely to be with us long.

Not reasonable are pay2win mechanics and the guts of the game paywalled.

What I don't find acceptable is an outrage storm over mild MTXs that fund ongoing online content. There is a gradation from not ok, to iffy to fine and I'll lend my support and quibble with the outrage accordingly.

There's nuance.
You called this "a pointless and irrelevant protest in my view" and talked about the "outrage storm" concerning "cosmetic fluff." That's not me. I'm talking about my views and how your purchases directly affect me. So I'll ask a question of YOU on behalf of YOU and only YOU.

To be clear, I'm not asking for some economic view of "How the world is now" or "billion dollar companies need to charge us even more to survive" or anything so grandiose. I'm asking YOU:

If something was always included in your purchase price in the past, how would it benefit you personally if you were charged extra for it today?

SofaJockey
10-29-2019, 09:24 AM
If something was always included in your purchase price in the past, how would it benefit you personally if you were charged extra for it today?

That would depend on what it was.

Ubisoft has included cosmetic content as MTX's in their games for many years.

They have done so again in Ghost Recon Breakpoint, prompting this discussion.

The microtransactions in GRB are no different in approach (cosmetic only) to past games, so I'm fine with it, as it is no different than usual.

This means the fuss about it, as I've said, is pointless and irrelevant fake outrage.

If they were selling game mechanics, such as in Battlefront II or Fallout 76, that would be different.

RazorBlade185
10-29-2019, 09:50 AM
Frankie_Drums,

If you buy an Audi, BMW or Mercedes you want to pay the base version but you want all the options the RS, M, or AMG versions have. You argument you have is that the old T Ford also offered only one model.

Games become more and more complex and the consumer is not satisfied anymore with a game like Pong, Pac-Man or Space Invaders. We want complete simulated cities, we want to be able to play as anyone, we want these cities to be bigger every time we get a new release. That costs money. In order to sell the game to a larger group of customers you have to be able to sell multiple versions at different price points. Doing that is very normal with software products and with all other products as wel (I just gave you the car example).
BTW you already pay more if you want a better gaming experience. You can’t buy a base model PC and expect it to have the performance of the most expensive gaming PC. And there are even different price points for consoles. The same for TV’s, monitors, keyboards, speakers, headsets, etc.

You are worried that some games will no longer be fun if you are not prepared to spend more money. That is not true. You get of course a lesser product if you spend less money but a game developer will never make a game extremely boring on purpose just to make you spend more. If they do that, nobody would buy or even play it.
It almost looks as if you are some communist who wants everybody to have exactly the same things or you are extremely jealous on other people. “If I can’t afford the top model of anything then you should not be allowed to have one either.”

Your protest messages on this or any other forum won’t help. If the game companies see however that their product is not popular however they will get in action. Sure, if people don’t want micro transactions then they will raise the base price. If people are not prepared to pay a higher base price then the developer will make their games less complex. One way or the other. You can’t expect Ubisoft or any other game developer to sell games below the development costs.

Frankie_Drums
10-29-2019, 01:32 PM
That would depend on what it was.

Ubisoft has included cosmetic content as MTX's in their games for many years.

They have done so again in Ghost Recon Breakpoint, prompting this discussion.

The microtransactions in GRB are no different in approach (cosmetic only) to past games, so I'm fine with it, as it is no different than usual.

This means the fuss about it, as I've said, is pointless and irrelevant fake outrage.

If they were selling game mechanics, such as in Battlefront II or Fallout 76, that would be different.
You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what Ubisoft has been doing for years. I didn't ask you what Breakpoint did. I didn't ask you if you were "fine" with it. I asked you a very specific question and the pivotal word of that question was "benefit." So, again:

If something was always included in your purchase price in the past, how would it benefit you personally if you were charged extra for it today?

Frankie_Drums
10-29-2019, 02:02 PM
Frankie_Drums,

If you buy an Audi, BMW or Mercedes you want to pay the base version but you want all the options the RS, M, or AMG versions have. You argument you have is that the old T Ford also offered only one model.
That analogy in no way represents what happened here. What happened here is that BMW let you take a car for a test drive (which is the same thing as Ubisoft letting us play the Breakpoint beta, for example). While you and thousands of other customers took their vehicles for a test drive, you turned on the AC (this is like the beta players who wore outfits). Based upon the test drive/beta, you purchased the car/game.

When you took your new car out for the first time, you turned on the AC, but found out there were only two settings: barely trickling out and mild breeze. You call the dealer and ask why your AC doesn’t work as advertised, and he says it does, you just need to pay more money for better settings (microtransactions). It turns out they took all the temperature data from their test drivers and the temperature settings that were popular are now locked behind a paywall (like the most popular outfits in the Breakpoint beta are locked behind paywalls in the full game).

That is a shady business practice.


Games become more and more complex and the consumer is not satisfied anymore with a game like Pong, Pac-Man or Space Invaders. We want complete simulated cities, we want to be able to play as anyone, we want these cities to be bigger every time we get a new release. That costs money. In order to sell the game to a larger group of customers you have to be able to sell multiple versions at different price points. Doing that is very normal with software products and with all other products as wel (I just gave you the car example).
Enough with the tired “developers need money” argument. You know who never makes that argument? Developers. It’s always the sycophant fans who claim their billion-dollar companies are barely scraping by and need to bleed every cent from their customers to prevent the doors from shuttering.

To further prove how wrong this is, there are hundreds of games released every year which are tremendously profitable and do NOT nickel-and-dime their customers.


BTW you already pay more if you want a better gaming experience. You can’t buy a base model PC and expect it to have the performance of the most expensive gaming PC. And there are even different price points for consoles. The same for TV’s, monitors, keyboards, speakers, headsets, etc..
Yes, you pay once for those items once and then they’re yours. You don’t take those items home, unbox them, and find out you have to pay additional microtransactions to use their contents.


You are worried that some games will no longer be fun if you are not prepared to spend more money. That is not true. You get of course a lesser product if you spend less money but a game developer will never make a game extremely boring on purpose just to make you spend more. If they do that, nobody would buy or even play it.
Are you joking? Is this a punchline? WHAT DO YOU THINK GRINDING IS? WHY DO YOU THINK UBOSOFT OFFERS TIME SAVERS SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO PLAY THEIR GAMES? What do you think people spend their time doing in MMOs when they talk about grinding levels?

Monetization has ALREADY hurt gaming and will continue to get worse if we don’t stop it now.


It almost looks as if you are some communist who wants everybody to have exactly the same things or you are extremely jealous on other people. “If I can’t afford the top model of anything then you should not be allowed to have one either.”
This is so inane I don’t want to dignify it with a response.


Your protest messages on this or any other forum won’t help.
You know who says things like that? Communists. (See how awful that is?)

If the game companies see however that their product is not popular however they will get in action.EXACTLY. And when people read my posts in public places like this, some will realize they are being taken advantage of and stop buying MTX. This is how the tide is turned.


Sure, if people don’t want micro transactions then they will raise the base price. If people are not prepared to pay a higher base price then the developer will make their games less complex. One way or the other. You can’t expect Ubisoft or any other game developer to sell games below the development costs.
Well, there’s two points here. The first is that, if Ubisoft removes MTX, this does not mean they are selling the game below development cost. It also does not mean games will be less complex. This refers to the “developers need money” argument I disregarded earlier.

Second, I am fine with Ubisoft raising the base price for their games. They could also go free-to-play and charge ONLY for MTX. That’s fine too. However, once you charge someone for a game, it is deceitful to lock things behind paywalls.

SofaJockey
10-30-2019, 12:47 AM
If something was always included in your purchase price in the past, how would it benefit you personally if you were charged extra for it today?

It would benefit me if I got something for it.

In the past games released and they were done.

More recently games have a supported life span with new content and that's typically funded by the microtransactions.

For the benefit of that ongoing service, I'm fine with supporting cosmetic MTX's indirectly, as others may well buy more of them than I do.

LegendOfGta
10-30-2019, 04:10 AM
If it's fun, it's time well spent.

If it's not fun, don't do it.

Debatable, but agree to a point. Grinding, when it's done correctly in a game design, will be fun and rewarding. These days, it's less of that and more an investment.

Way2go guys on taking up a whole section on nothing but arguing about MTXs...

I already inserted myself into the debate so I guess I'll continue. Well her's my two cents...

a) Before these "shady business practices", the worse you had to deal with was a full game that had no DLC, ONline PAsses, etc. It was just the base game and you paid almost the same as you would today: $59.99 with no strings attached.

b) Then came Season Passes and Online Passes as a form of DRM than anything else.

c) Then came DLC, but it was PAID DLC that took time and effort to create and was worth the price charge. Not cosmetics; actual maps, new storylines, different multiplayer modes, etc

d) Enter the microtransaction phase, the downfall of gaming...While I get devs need to pay for their games, microtransactions isn't the way, and I strongly disagree that I should pay more money than I already spent on the game, again, $59.99+

e) Lootboxes; gg, wp, u ded

Bottom line; you shouldn't have to pay extra for a game you already purchased via MTXs since the content should already be accessible from the beginning. They use this method just to make things DLC and MTX just to get money off you otherwise it would be released DAY 1 along with all the other content on the game. This was, ofc, back when we had physical discs and media but now everything is digital, and that's bad news, especially with the rumors of download streaming coming. That means the only way you get your game is by subscribing to their service just so you can download the streaming process or something.

Have your voices heard by using what they listen to most; your wallets! Vote with your wallets and together we can show companies that these MTXs and "shady business practices" aren't what we want in our games. EA, T2, Bethesda, and even Ubisoft...just cut the [r@p and give us the game. You can make paid DLC on the side after the game releases with new storylines, missions, multiplayer modes, etc. Stop nickel and diming us for cosmetics and p2w tactics. I've been seeing this evolution for years and frankly I'm sick of it!

Frankie_Drums
10-30-2019, 07:58 PM
It would benefit me if I got something for it.

In the past games released and they were done.

More recently games have a supported life span with new content and that's typically funded by the microtransactions.

For the benefit of that ongoing service, I'm fine with supporting cosmetic MTX's indirectly, as others may well buy more of them than I do.
OK, to reiterate, you're not getting anything additional for the additional charge. Let's go with this specific example: You used to get a game with 100 free outfits included. Now you get the same game but you only get the pants of those outfits and have to pay additional microtransactions for the shirts. Based on this example:

If something was always included in your purchase price in the past, how would it benefit you personally if you were charged extra for it today?


Debatable, but agree to a point. Grinding, when it's done correctly in a game design, will be fun and rewarding. These days, it's less of that and more an investment.

Way2go guys on taking up a whole section on nothing but arguing about MTXs...

I already inserted myself into the debate so I guess I'll continue. Well her's my two cents...

a) Before these "shady business practices", the worse you had to deal with was a full game that had no DLC, ONline PAsses, etc. It was just the base game and you paid almost the same as you would today: $59.99 with no strings attached.

b) Then came Season Passes and Online Passes as a form of DRM than anything else.

c) Then came DLC, but it was PAID DLC that took time and effort to create and was worth the price charge. Not cosmetics; actual maps, new storylines, different multiplayer modes, etc

d) Enter the microtransaction phase, the downfall of gaming...While I get devs need to pay for their games, microtransactions isn't the way, and I strongly disagree that I should pay more money than I already spent on the game, again, $59.99+

e) Lootboxes; gg, wp, u ded

Bottom line; you shouldn't have to pay extra for a game you already purchased via MTXs since the content should already be accessible from the beginning. They use this method just to make things DLC and MTX just to get money off you otherwise it would be released DAY 1 along with all the other content on the game. This was, ofc, back when we had physical discs and media but now everything is digital, and that's bad news, especially with the rumors of download streaming coming. That means the only way you get your game is by subscribing to their service just so you can download the streaming process or something.

Have your voices heard by using what they listen to most; your wallets! Vote with your wallets and together we can show companies that these MTXs and "shady business practices" aren't what we want in our games. EA, T2, Bethesda, and even Ubisoft...just cut the [r@p and give us the game. You can make paid DLC on the side after the game releases with new storylines, missions, multiplayer modes, etc. Stop nickel and diming us for cosmetics and p2w tactics. I've been seeing this evolution for years and frankly I'm sick of it!

So I disagree on the fundamentals--I don't like any paid DLC, as I feel it all represents content that could have been included with the base game or offered for free after launch. However, that's a very radical opinion and not likely to gain traction here, so I'm going to put that aside unless it becomes relevant.

Voting with your wallet is absolutely the way to go. I always buy physical editions when that's an option, I never pre-order (although I would if there was an item that had true scarity, such as a limited-edition item that was truly limited), and I don't buy microtransactions. I also avoid games that are riddled with microtransactions, which is why I didn't buy Shadow of Mordor or Breakpoint. And I really hope WD:Legion doesn't have them because I'll jump ship from Ubisoft entirely if this is their new business model.

SofaJockey
10-31-2019, 01:11 AM
Voting with your wallet is absolutely the way to go. I always buy physical editions when that's an option, I never pre-order (although I would if there was an item that had true scarity, such as a limited-edition item that was truly limited), and I don't buy microtransactions. I also avoid games that are riddled with microtransactions, which is why I didn't buy Shadow of Mordor or Breakpoint. And I really hope WD:Legion doesn't have them because I'll jump ship from Ubisoft entirely if this is their new business model.

Yes, voting with your wallet makes sense, though people will have different perspectives.

I always buy digital, often pre-order and loved Shadow of Mordor and am loving Breakpoint.

I will occasionally drop a microtransaction, but less in total value than the cost of the game (not getting carried away).

I guess it remains to be seen what happens with WD Legion, but my digital pre-order is in. We'll know more in 6-8 months I guess.

Frankie_Drums
10-31-2019, 02:02 AM
Yes, voting with your wallet makes sense, though people will have different perspectives.

I always buy digital, often pre-order and loved Shadow of Mordor and am loving Breakpoint.

I will occasionally drop a microtransaction, but less in total value than the cost of the game (not getting carried away).

I guess it remains to be seen what happens with WD Legion, but my digital pre-order is in. We'll know more in 6-8 months I guess.

It's revealing (and a bit disingenuous) that you dodged my simple, direct question three times by either reframing or ignoring it. We both know why that is--because if you answer my question honestly, your support of microtransactions collapses. Oh well, I led you to water but I can't make you drink.

Never pay in advance for a product of unknown quality or quantity, unless you live in a remote area or the item has true scarcity. Pre-orders are bad for consumers and there are numerous articles on the subject. Not looking to derail the thread, but it's worth noting that you are exactly the type of gamer Ubisoft loves to exploit, and the fact that you're either unaware of that or somehow enamored by it is, again, very revealing. It almost sounds as if you have a personal agenda.

LegendOfGta
10-31-2019, 04:16 AM
So I disagree on the fundamentals--I don't like any paid DLC, as I feel it all represents content that could have been included with the base game or offered for free after launch. However, that's a very radical opinion and not likely to gain traction here, so I'm going to put that aside unless it becomes relevant.

Voting with your wallet is absolutely the way to go. I always buy physical editions when that's an option, I never pre-order (although I would if there was an item that had true scarity, such as a limited-edition item that was truly limited), and I don't buy microtransactions. I also avoid games that are riddled with microtransactions, which is why I didn't buy Shadow of Mordor or Breakpoint. And I really hope WD:Legion doesn't have them because I'll jump ship from Ubisoft entirely if this is their new business model.

Not all paid DLC is a bad thing though. Depends on how it is used and how you, the consumer, can benefit from it. I'll give you an example from NFS: Hot Pursuit 2010. EA, yes that EA, came up with the idea of a "catch up pack". It was a paid DLC/early MTX that could unlock all the cars for you so you didn't have to waste time grinding game progression to get them. I bought it. You know why? Based on my schedule, I was very busy and couldn't devote enough time to play enough or long enough to unlock each vehicle. I did get a good amount, but the grind kept getting a little more and more time consuming and I simply had other priorities, so I opted in and bought the pack, instantly granting me access t the vehicles, which I could use in any event and MP.

Takeaway here is what I first said. Not all paid DLC is bad. Depends on how it is used and how the consumer can benefit from purchasing it. In this case, it was a huge benefit to me but for others, they could view me as lazy and just using money to beat the game quicker compared to grinding and EARNING them.

For this, I also disagree that you should "jump ship" just because WD: Legion may have an MTX or two. You still hold the power to decide if you want to engage in them or not. You don't have to buy them. However; due to other people doing so has given companies more and more leverage to keep pushing this dreck into our games, which I still disagree with.


It's revealing (and a bit disingenuous) that you dodged my simple, direct question three times by either reframing or ignoring it. We both know why that is--because if you answer my question honestly, your support of microtransactions collapses. Oh well, I led you to water but I can't make you drink.

Never pay in advance for a product of unknown quality or quantity, unless you live in a remote area or the item has true scarcity. Pre-orders are bad for consumers and there are numerous articles on the subject. Not looking to derail the thread, but it's worth noting that you are exactly the type of gamer Ubisoft loves to exploit, and the fact that you're either unaware of that or somehow enamored by it is, again, very revealing. It almost sounds as if you have a personal agenda.

For me, it depends how you are supporting MTXs in games that I base my opinion of you on. If you are engaging in them to earn unfair advantages, aka p2w opportunities, over other players, then you are contributing to the problem. If you support MTxs based on how they benefit you and your character but have no advantageous extras involved that would be deemed unfair to someone who didn't purchase said MTX, then I don't think you are necessarily the problem but I do think you should consider if there are better ways for the company to be trying to sell us stuff, be it, more than just cosmetic awards.

I agree with Frankie though, you should never pre-order a game until it's been released. While the ultimate critic is ofc yourself, reviews by other players are just as beneficial. Ignore reviews by top game reviewers, like Nintendo Power or other magazines. They get kickbacks and perks to make a crappy game appear in a great light. Only go by yours and player reviews because most players will not lie about how the game really is.

Another thing to take into consideration is that you are basically participating in the stock market. There's no guarantee that your investment is going to turn out like you hope. IT could be a totally crap game, and the only thing that gets taken away from this would be your money. I used to pre-order games when I was young as well. I grew up and considered not running out to pre order and rather just wait and see how the game pans out. Plus, most games I'm interested in these days I wait on to see if mod tools get developed since that's one main advantage of the PC gaming platform (with disregards to MP ofc). If you're going to pre-order, you should do your homework first and not rely on "smoke n mirrors" promises that have yet to be revealed. Most of the time, the content offered can be obtained by playing the game normally. You're just unlocking it quicker.

SofaJockey
10-31-2019, 12:35 PM
It's revealing (and a bit disingenuous) that you dodged my simple, direct question three times by either reframing or ignoring it. We both know why that is--because if you answer my question honestly, your support of microtransactions collapses. Oh well, I led you to water but I can't make you drink.

Utter nonsense.

You can't frame a silly question in order to trick people into giving you the answer you want.

I reframed the question in order to add some sense to it.

I think you should stop judging other gamers for their legitimate opinions simply because it does not meet your narrow perspective.

I'll say it yet again, the matter of microtransactions has nuance and complexity, some bad, some acceptable.

You are welcome to your view and your personal choices, but there is no need to browbeat others about it.

LegendOfGta
11-01-2019, 04:35 AM
I'll say it yet again, the matter of microtransactions has nuance and complexity, some bad, some acceptable.



That's basically what this boils down to, but some companies take more advantage of the MTX design than others, which leads to abusing the system at times.

RazorBlade185
11-01-2019, 09:19 AM
That's basically what this boils down to, but some companies take more advantage of the MTX design than others, which leads to abusing the system at times.

We also came to the conclusion that if enough people vote with their wallet that it helps. So, it is not so that game compagnies can do whatever they want. Yes, most consumers are prepared to pay a decent price for a good product. I think they would even be prepared to pay extra for DLC if that DLC is substantial.

This whole discussion is however becoming irrelevant because we don't know what we are talkin about. It started with things like a few dollar for a few extra skins. I don't mind if they do that because I don't buy it anyway. I also saw in this discussion that we discussed things like games that cost 10.000 dollar and if you don't pay you have to grind it. If that is for a full game then I would not buy it. Also P2W is not something I would do. The same for loot boxes. If I don't like a game I simply don't buy it. Everybody can make that decision for himself.

SofaJockey
11-01-2019, 02:31 PM
Yep, we'll need to see what the MTX economy is like nearer to launch and make individual decisions about it then.

Frankie_Drums
11-01-2019, 11:37 PM
Utter nonsense.

You can't frame a silly question in order to trick people into giving you the answer you want.

I reframed the question in order to add some sense to it.

I think you should stop judging other gamers for their legitimate opinions simply because it does not meet your narrow perspective.

I'll say it yet again, the matter of microtransactions has nuance and complexity, some bad, some acceptable.

You are welcome to your view and your personal choices, but there is no need to browbeat others about it.
There was no trickery. I asked you a simple question and you tried to reframe it because your entire argument collapses when confronted with the truth.

If you get a game this year and everything is included in the price but next year (at the same price) they gate content behind a paywall, that doesn't benefit you. It devalues your purchase. And if you admit that, then you're against microstransactions.

LegendOfGta
11-02-2019, 05:21 AM
We also came to the conclusion that if enough people vote with their wallet that it helps. So, it is not so that game compagnies can do whatever they want. Yes, most consumers are prepared to pay a decent price for a good product. I think they would even be prepared to pay extra for DLC if that DLC is substantial.

This whole discussion is however becoming irrelevant because we don't know what we are talkin about. It started with things like a few dollar for a few extra skins. I don't mind if they do that because I don't buy it anyway. I also saw in this discussion that we discussed things like games that cost 10.000 dollar and if you don't pay you have to grind it. If that is for a full game then I would not buy it. Also P2W is not something I would do. The same for loot boxes. If I don't like a game I simply don't buy it. Everybody can make that decision for himself.

The discussion is about microtransactions, and how the OP doesn't want Ubisoft to "botch up" Legion by adding them in. I personally don't think MTX will become that encroaching nor intrusive but you never know.

Anyways, this is why forums exist. When users engage in them correctly, minus flaming and junk, we can reach a constructive compromise or equal matter of opinion that helps benefit Ubisoft on feedback. OFC, this forum alone doesn't count for the majority of the players who will be playing Legion but at least devs can still gather ideas and feedback.

SofaJockey
11-02-2019, 10:44 AM
Blah...

I'm sure you think that. :rolleyes:

The likely outcome is that Ubi will be wary of how they monetize with MTX's amd that the microtransactions in Legion will be an amount they feel they can include without too much upset.

So close to, but perhaps a little lighter than recent Ubi games.

And that would be fine. :cool:

RazorBlade185
11-02-2019, 01:04 PM
The discussion is about microtransactions, and how the OP doesn't want Ubisoft to "botch up" Legion by adding them in. I personally don't think MTX will become that encroaching nor intrusive but you never know.

Anyways, this is why forums exist. When users engage in them correctly, minus flaming and junk, we can reach a constructive compromise or equal matter of opinion that helps benefit Ubisoft on feedback. OFC, this forum alone doesn't count for the majority of the players who will be playing Legion but at least devs can still gather ideas and feedback.

Well if you don't define microtransactions then suddenly everything is a microtransaction. IMHO a microtransaction is a very small payment that you do to get a minor upgrade to your game. E.g 1 dollar for a very cool car skin.

Like I said I don't mind if a game developers put things like that in the game. You don't have to buy them and the game becomes marginally better if you buy them.

What I don't consider microtransactions are season passes and large parts of downloadable content that gives the game a whole new dimension.

I don't mind that either because you get what you pay for. A base game provides e.g. 40 hours of gameplay and a DLC pack gives 20 extra hours with new story lines.

However, what I don't want to see are pay to win options like your bullets are twice as deadly for X amount of time if you pay 1 dollar. That is simply cheating.

So, yeah, I don't mind the real microtransactions with skins etc, I don't mind the real DLC that gives you a substantial amount of extra content for a substantial price.

But I don't like the option of having to pay after you bought the game for features that give you a sort of advantage or features that a so much of part of base feature set that you can't play the game in a good manner if you don't buy them. If that happens I vote with my wallet.

If you start a discussion about microtransactions and you don't define what you consider microtransactions then what is the point in having a discussion? Especially Frankie_Drums seems to consider hundreds or even thousands of dollars a microtransaction. That is not what is in the previous Watch_Dogs games so I can only assume that it won't be a part of this game.

LegendOfGta
11-03-2019, 06:11 AM
Well if you don't define microtransactions then suddenly everything is a microtransaction. IMHO a microtransaction is a very small payment that you do to get a minor upgrade to your game. E.g 1 dollar for a very cool car skin.
And to me, a microtransaction is the use of money to unlock content in a game, whatever it may be. In regards to GTA: Online, it can be virtual currency. In WD, it can be cosmetics. In NFS, it can be vehicle packs.


Like I said I don't mind if a game developers put things like that in the game. You don't have to buy them and the game becomes marginally better if you buy them.
I only mind if the devs put these MTXs in the game to blatantly entice us to purchase them. By that I mean making grinding for said content unenjoyable or arduous.


What I don't consider microtransactions are season passes and large parts of downloadable content that gives the game a whole new dimension.
In the case of GTA IV's TLaD and TBoGT expansions, I would agree. These were DLC you had to pay for, and it introduced more than a few cosmetics into the game. It introduced a whole 'nother storyline and game modes, including a different theme for the game.

I disagree. Season passes are like lumping a bunch of microtransactions together into one package you pay for. I don't appreciate them since they are part of the example of what I don't want to see in microtransactions above, i.e., enticing players by making grinding for them seem arduous and less appealing. But in this case, some of that content may/may not even be available unless you purchase the Season Pass. That would add restrictive qualities to the mix, and that is something I truly hate when it comes to MTXs.


I don't mind that either because you get what you pay for. A base game provides e.g. 40 hours of gameplay and a DLC pack gives 20 extra hours with new story lines.
In the case of the GTA IV example I gave, that would be fine. Examples where grinding seems to be discouraged or the content is severely restricted as a result are examples I'm NOT okay with.


However, what I don't want to see are pay to win options like your bullets are twice as deadly for X amount of time if you pay 1 dollar. That is simply cheating.

"Legal" cheating as cheating usually violates the ToS. In this case, your're paying to win which translates to PAY 2 CHEAT in your case. I don't agree with P2W tactics either in MTXs.


So, yeah, I don't mind the real microtransactions with skins etc, I don't mind the real DLC that gives you a substantial amount of extra content for a substantial price. But I don't like the option of having to pay after you bought the game for features that give you a sort of advantage or features that a so much of part of base feature set that you can't play the game in a good manner if you don't buy them. If that happens I vote with my wallet. If you start a discussion about microtransactions and you don't define what you consider microtransactions then what is the point in having a discussion? Especially Frankie_Drums seems to consider hundreds or even thousands of dollars a microtransaction. That is not what is in the previous Watch_Dogs games so I can only assume that it won't be a part of this game.

Exactly. This is what a player is supposed to do when faced with encroaching MTX practices in their favorite game titles.

Fair points all around. It's rare I'm able to find users that make coherent, factual replies to forum topics.


I'm sure you think that. :rolleyes:

The likely outcome is that Ubi will be wary of how they monetize with MTX's amd that the microtransactions in Legion will be an amount they feel they can include without too much upset.

So close to, but perhaps a little lighter than recent Ubi games.

And that would be fine. :cool:
Seeing as developer Ghost Games backed off the Speed Card design when players openly disagreed with it, I have a feeling that Ubisoft will take into consideration user/player feedback here as well and make the appropriate changes/adjustments.

RazorBlade185
11-03-2019, 01:31 PM
And to me, a microtransaction is the use of money to unlock content in a game, whatever it may be.

Well, there you have it. We are discussing microtransactions but we are actually discussing completely different things. That is my whole point. You say any transaction is a microtransaction. It does not make sense to me to call any transaction a microtransaction because why would you completely ignore the word "micro". "Micro" stands for "very small". If I go by your definition then you could say that the initial transaction to buy the game is a microtransaction. You say it is "the use of money to unlock content in a game, whatever it may be". I think that if you buy a game you do just that.

BTW. I never played GTA up to a point that I saw any microtransactions. I started the main campaign and after a few hours it was clear that I did not like the game so I quit it. So don't expect me to know how GTA micro transactions work.


Edit: let me tell you what I consider cheating in a multiplayer game because you have a good point that if you do not violate the terms of service you could argue that it is cheating or not. I consider cheating if you create an unlevel playing field. If I buy a deck of playing cards then there is no terms of service but if I place a hidden camera behind the opponent so I can see the cards he has then I consider that cheating despite that there is no terms of service.

I could not edit my own post so I had to write a new one. Probably a bug or incompatibility of my browser.

Frankie_Drums
11-04-2019, 02:40 AM
Deflection
Another post on how Ubisoft will act, rather than addressing how you feel about paying more for content which used to be included in the base price. You should have just said "I'm a corporate stooge with no opinion of my own" at the beginning of the conversation to save us both time.


I only mind if the devs put these MTXs in the game to blatantly entice us to purchase them. By that I mean making grinding for said content unenjoyable or arduous.The only way a producer can charge a consumer for an item is if that item has perceived value to the consumer.

In the case of video games, grinding isn't the only way to make an item have value. Every single game you've ever bought caught your eye because of how it looked. Graphics are an important part of this medium and locking outfits that are popular (perceived to be better) behind a paywall is just as duplicitous as making a game grindy so people can pay to get through the game faster.


Frankie_Drums seems to consider hundreds or even thousands of dollars a microtransaction.
In Assasssin's Creed: Odyssey, you can buy a sword, armor and horse skin for $15. That is certainly a microtransaction--it's not what we usually term DLC in the classic sense. But at the same time, it's not just a dollar, so is it still an MTX?

This is part of the reason why I am against ALL content which is charged for above the full price of the game. Again, I know it's a radical opinion, but it's logically consistent. People who say "MTX aren't OK if they're pay-to-win" are inconsistent because they're failing to acknowledge that winning isn't the only part of gaming. In fact, I'd argue that FUN is more important than winning, and when fun portions of your game are being locked away from you, you should recognize that your purchases ARE being devalued by MTX even when they're not "pay-to-win."

LegendOfGta
11-04-2019, 06:39 AM
Well, there you have it. We are discussing microtransactions but we are actually discussing completely different things. That is my whole point. You say any transaction is a microtransaction. It does not make sense to me to call any transaction a microtransaction because why would you completely ignore the word "micro". "Micro" stands for "very small". If I go by your definition then you could say that the initial transaction to buy the game is a microtransaction. You say it is "the use of money to unlock content in a game, whatever it may be". I think that if you buy a game you do just that.

BTW. I never played GTA up to a point that I saw any microtransactions. I started the main campaign and after a few hours it was clear that I did not like the game so I quit it. So don't expect me to know how GTA micro transactions work.




Edit: let me tell you what I consider cheating in a multiplayer game because you have a good point that if you do not violate the terms of service you could argue that it is cheating or not. I consider cheating if you create an unlevel playing field. If I buy a deck of playing cards then there is no terms of service but if I place a hidden camera behind the opponent so I can see the cards he has then I consider that cheating despite that there is no terms of service.

I could not edit my own post so I had to write a new one. Probably a bug or incompatibility of my browser.



Ugh. The last thing I intended on doing was confuse you while we are having a discussion. I am not saying that every transaction is an MTX. When I said:

"the use of money to unlock content in a game, whatever it may be"

I meant after you had already made the initial purchase. So, the use of money to unlock content in a game AFTER the initial game purchase then I would consider a microtransaction, whatever the content may be. Hope that clears it up a bit.

Moving on...

Yes; usually MTXs are very small amounts of money used to purchase in-game content. No argument there, but depending on the company, sometimes they go further than that and charge [like Frankie's example] $15 for a few items. That to me is one of the things I don't like about MTXs, the fact they can encroach into a game in such a fashion.

Since you aren't familiar with GTA: Online MTXs, just know that you can purchase "stuff" in the game using a virtual currency. R* allows you to gain that virtual currency quicker through fake credit cards called SHARK CARDS. These are the MTXs as you're paying real money to gain fake in-game currency quicker. Example; $5 = 500K fake currency.

In regards to your edited post, while playing cards don't come with a ToS, each game that's been invented comes with rules. Even though you wouldn't be breaking a ToS by using a camera to spy on your opponent's cards, you'd still be breaking the rules, and even if there is no such defined rule you break the spirit of the game. A ToS is really like a ToU (terms of use) agreement which states you can only do certain things to the product. In a way, putting up a camera to spy on players' cards could be viewed as breaking the spirit of the game, which you may argue is similar to violating a ToU/ToS agreement. I still get your point. MY point was that while cheating using unconventional tools and software is bannable, P2W tactics seem not to be and could be thought of "legal cheating" since some publishers only care about the money you give them and will overlook the obvious advantages you have over other players.

If I may, another example of a game that had some notorious P2W tactics is APB: Reloaded. I'll assume that you didn't play this one either. To give you one example, sniper rifles were some of the heaviest weapons you could carry. So heavy they would slow your running speed down. Well, there are a few snipers on the in-game marketplace (called SCOUT class) that can eliminate the running slowdown since they are supposedly lightweight variants. It's a small advantage but it fits the topic and discussion.


The only way a producer can charge a consumer for an item is if that item has perceived value to the consumer.

In the case of video games, grinding isn't the only way to make an item have value. Every single game you've ever bought caught your eye because of how it looked. Graphics are an important part of this medium and locking outfits that are popular (perceived to be better) behind a paywall is just as duplicitous as making a game grindy so people can pay to get through the game faster.

Funny enough, I'm more of a gameplay player, not a graphics player. Aka, I'm not in it for the graphics and more for the gameplay mechanics and other stuff. As for your pother post, yes, FUN is another factor that players play games. It's not always about the competition, but in that light, there's slightly more free will when it comes to paying for MTXs since it's mostly cosmetic based. We've established that paying for MTXs when it comes to cosmetics isn't all bad. It's when it's used to gain a competitive edge or forcibly restrict certain parts of the game that it becomes unfavorable.

Frankie_Drums
11-05-2019, 06:06 AM
Funny enough, I'm more of a gameplay player, not a graphics player. Aka, I'm not in it for the graphics and more for the gameplay mechanics and other stuff.
Every single one of us says that. No one says, "I enjoyed playing this horrible game that looked great!"

What you don't take into consideration is that, when you see a game, you instantly process if you will like it based upon how it looks. Graphics are possibly the most important aspect of selling a game. That doesn't mean that graphics are more important than gameplay, but it does mean that even cosmetic MTX devalue your purchase.

LegendOfGta
11-06-2019, 04:31 AM
Everyone can say it but I actually mean it. I've played GTA: IV on an 800x600 display and still had fun with the game. I've played The Crew 2, NFS: Payback, and The Crew 1 and GTA: V on low graphics and still had fun.

Frankie_Drums
11-06-2019, 06:08 AM
Everyone can say it but I actually mean it. I've played GTA: IV on an 800x600 display and still had fun with the game. I've played The Crew 2, NFS: Payback, and The Crew 1 and GTA: V on low graphics and still had fun.Fine, fine, you play graphics that are blurry and squint during gameplay and don't care if everything is 8-bit and play games in black and white and don't mind if the frame rate is 20 FPS and are OK with your protagonist being a nondescript blob. Awesome. Pac-Man can't wait to have you back. You're an anachronism in a world of sell-outs. Yay.

This will be great news for console manufacturers since they can dial back the specs of the next generation. Why bother making all these advancements with texturing and lighting and rendering and 4K 60FPS nonsense when you've decreed that graphics don't matter? All they need to do is repackage the NES and sell it to us with modern titles. Graphics don't matter! You've saved the industry. Thanks for your service.

:rolleyes:

What are you even getting at here? Why does this conversation keep veering off course into inconsequential minutiae every time I make a general statement? It's like no one can admit the basics so they try to make a point about some tangential non-issue.

1. All skins and game modes used to be included in a full retail price game.
2. Ubisoft is still charging you full retail price for the game but is now locking the content, which used to be free, behind a paywall.
3. This means you're paying the same price but getting less for your money, i.e., your purchase has been devalued.
4. As a consumer, you do not benefit from this in any way, and the practice needs to end NOW before your future purchases are devalued by additional paywalls.
5. The way to end this practice is to vote with your wallet.

That's it. That's the crux of my argument. It doesn't matter if you like gameplay over graphics, or if they're pay-to-win, or if you only buy them when they're on sale. And if anyone disagrees with steps 1-5 I'm happy to listen to objective reasons why.

SofaJockey
11-06-2019, 08:38 AM
5. The way to end this practice is to vote with your wallet..

Vote with your wallet then.

I think it's pretty clear that most people are fairly relaxed about cosmetic microtransactions, so long as they are included at a level that Ubisoft has generally implemented in recent years.

LegendOfGta
11-06-2019, 09:23 AM
Fine, fine, you play graphics that are blurry and squint during gameplay and don't care if everything is 8-bit and play games in black and white and don't mind if the frame rate is 20 FPS and are OK with your protagonist being a nondescript blob. Awesome. Pac-Man can't wait to have you back. You're an anachronism in a world of sell-outs. Yay.

This will be great news for console manufacturers since they can dial back the specs of the next generation. Why bother making all these advancements with texturing and lighting and rendering and 4K 60FPS nonsense when you've decreed that graphics don't matter? All they need to do is repackage the NES and sell it to us with modern titles. Graphics don't matter! You've saved the industry. Thanks for your service.

:rolleyes:

What are you even getting at here? Why does this conversation keep veering off course into inconsequential minutiae every time I make a general statement? It's like no one can admit the basics so they try to make a point about some tangential non-issue.

1. All skins and game modes used to be included in a full retail price game.
2. Ubisoft is still charging you full retail price for the game but is now locking the content, which used to be free, behind a paywall.
3. This means you're paying the same price but getting less for your money, i.e., your purchase has been devalued.
4. As a consumer, you do not benefit from this in any way, and the practice needs to end NOW before your future purchases are devalued by additional paywalls.
5. The way to end this practice is to vote with your wallet.

That's it. That's the crux of my argument. It doesn't matter if you like gameplay over graphics, or if they're pay-to-win, or if you only buy them when they're on sale. And if anyone disagrees with steps 1-5 I'm happy to listen to objective reasons why.

I actually enjoy playing Pacman. It's one of my all time favorites. Honestly,, screw modern gaming. Give me Galaga, Asteriods, Centipede, Pacman, Missile Command, Dig Dug, etc anyday.

Moving on...

I was just getting at that while others may say they prefer gameplay over graphics, I actually meant it. Nothing more. The conversations keep veering off because we've basically exhausted this topic. We've each said our peace on the matter, and expressed differing opinions that some of us can at least agree on. We can't come to a complete consensus yet on one specific opinion but we can come to mutual understandings or "meet each other halfway" it seems.

1-4 I agree with but do you really think we can stop it at this point? Let's face it, if not paywalls they'll come up with another mechanic on how to implement this. Most likely the next phase is going to be subscriptions that allow you to even download the purchased content. Without being a part of the subscription platform, you wouldn't even be able to see the game digitally. While many don't like the idea of DLC or MTXs, the bigger picture here is how much farther can these companies push the system? It's just getting worse IMO but I don't have the money nor the influence to make anything change. Sure I can vote with my wallet but it's not going to change much at all. We just say that to cope with the fact our video game industry and way of life is ultimately F!@#ED!!!

RazorBlade185
11-06-2019, 01:52 PM
1-4 I agree with but do you really think we can stop it at this point? Let's face it, if not paywalls they'll come up with another mechanic on how to implement this. Most likely the next phase is going to be subscriptions that allow you to even download the purchased content. Without being a part of the subscription platform, you wouldn't even be able to see the game digitally. While many don't like the idea of DLC or MTXs, the bigger picture here is how much farther can these companies push the system? It's just getting worse IMO but I don't have the money nor the influence to make anything change. Sure I can vote with my wallet but it's not going to change much at all. We just say that to cope with the fact our video game industry and way of life is ultimately F!@#ED!!!

I am not sure if a subscription model is worse then paying per game. For a lot of people services like Spotify are better then paying for each new album that you want to buy. In the past you had the main album, then you had from all the hits on that album 12" versions and before you knew it you payed 60 - 80 dollar for all the songs of that single album. Now you have every song from every album for 10 dollar per month. Where can I sign for 10 dollar per month for every game ever released?

FusionWar101
11-07-2019, 01:46 AM
Yeah so one of the reasons why I wanted to play this is because a lot of my friends said the customization is awesome and the gameplay was great, but will you be adding in character in which we can make so we don't have people getting pissed over this? I would say if you guys at least allow us to make characters for multiplayer then in my books that would be fine.

Frankie_Drums
11-07-2019, 02:40 AM
most people are fairly relaxed about cosmetic microtransactions
You have no data to back that up aside from anecdotes on the official forums which are (surprise?) populated with people who like Ubisoft products. Change "most" with "some" and you might have a leg to stand on.

I just voted with my wallet by not buying GR: Breakpoint. I'll do it again here and with Gods & Monsters if need be, and if I have to abandon Ubisoft entirely, so be it.

Just so we're clear: your side of the issue is populated entirely by people who are sycophants, uninformed, or indifferent about their purchasing power. You claim to be in the third group, but no one group is better than the others, they're all self-defeating and illogical.


I actually enjoy playing Pacman. It's one of my all time favorites. Honestly,, screw modern gaming. Give me Galaga, Asteriods, Centipede, Pacman, Missile Command, Dig Dug, etc anyday.

If those games held your attention you wouldn't be interested in Watch Dogs: Legion or any other modern game.


do you really think we can stop it at this point? Sure I can vote with my wallet but it's not going to change much at all. We just say that to cope with the fact our video game industry and way of life is ultimately F!@#ED!!!
Yes, we can stop it. As proof that we can stop it, I'll repeat what I said earlier:

Konami only offered one save slot with Metal Gear Survive--if you wanted to buy 3 more save slots it cost $10. Metro: Last Light and Zelda: Breath of the Wild on shipped their games with one difficulty and Hard mode was bundled as part of paid DLC. EA tried implementing an online pass so they could gate off access for used games and Xbox One was originally going to charge you FULL PRICE to borrow a friend's game if you wanted to play it on your own Gamertag.

We stopped every one of those practices by being vocal and voting with our wallet. We were so vocal with GR: Breakpoint that Ubisoft delayed all of their spring titles and is issuing a questionnaire tomorrow to gauge our reactions on upcoming GR: B changes. If fans tell them, on the survey, that they don't want their purchases devalued and that they don't want content which used to be included in their purchase gated behind paywalls, they'll listen.

It's very easy to take action against a company when you remember that we hold all the power in the producer-supplier relationship. We can find alternatives to their product but if they lose us they're f*cked.

LegendOfGta
11-07-2019, 05:19 AM
If those games held your attention you wouldn't be interested in Watch Dogs: Legion or any other modern game.

...

I'm a gamer. I'm allowed to explore whatever gaming platforms I'd like, but it's clear that the era in which I listed those games was the "better" era since we didn't have to put up with all this crap to begin with. I hope you're not confused because I actually am agreeing with you. To see how gaming has transformed from that era to now is disgusting. The fact that we have to pay additional money to get things within the game that should already be available to us is just greed, plain and simple. No matter how you want to spin it, greed runs the world, and the game developers run the gaming industry. They make the games we so desperately want to play, so they know they can get us hooked on the MTXs, especially if they make them so small that in our eyes is an insignificant loss.




Yes, we can stop it. As proof that we can stop it, I'll repeat what I said earlier:

Konami only offered one save slot with Metal Gear Survive--if you wanted to buy 3 more save slots it cost $10. Metro: Last Light and Zelda: Breath of the Wild on shipped their games with one difficulty and Hard mode was bundled as part of paid DLC. EA tried implementing an online pass so they could gate off access for used games and Xbox One was originally going to charge you FULL PRICE to borrow a friend's game if you wanted to play it on your own Gamertag.

We stopped every one of those practices by being vocal and voting with our wallet. We were so vocal with GR: Breakpoint that Ubisoft delayed all of their spring titles and is issuing a questionnaire tomorrow to gauge our reactions on upcoming GR: B changes. If fans tell them, on the survey, that they don't want their purchases devalued and that they don't want content which used to be included in their purchase gated behind paywalls, they'll listen.

It's very easy to take action against a company when you remember that we hold all the power in the producer-supplier relationship. We can find alternatives to their product but if they lose us they're f*cked.

Never played any of those games. I just know the introduction and implementation of lootboxes was as close as I got to typing EA a very angry, hateful email. My reasoning behind why we don't really have any control over this situation could get extremely political, and I don't think anyone wants to read that. Simply put, we're not in control. We have an illusion of control. The publishers run the franchises while they make the devs slave away night and day to produce the games we so desperately want to play. Depending on the developer's greed, if it's high then we'll continue to see MTXs in bigger and maybe even more intrusive forms (*cough* SURPRISE MECHANICS *cough*). Even if we try to silence these practices by voting with our wallets, they'll still try to find ways around it. Look at EA's surprise mechanics argument. Even though it fell flat, they almost succeeded with their BS excuses, so what makes you think one failure is going to stop them? No! They'll just keep hammering at it until they lose their fanbase completely or develop some other genius way of pulling us in.

Look at E-ciagarettes. We started with regular cigarettes, which everyone said was great, fun and harmless. Then the truth came out and activists everywhere are trying to ban them because they aren't healthy and cause cancer. What did the tobacco company do? Target ads at kids and teems. When that failed what did they do? Create "filtered" cigarettes claiming they were better. When that failed? E-ciagarettes. Well, now that excuse is failing as well, and after trying once again to target kids and teens, E-caigarettes altogether are falling under extreme scrutiny by the public, but THAT WON'T STOP THEM! Wait until you see what they come up with next!

In the same way, we can compre cigarettes and E-cigarettes to MTX use in video games. Companies aren't going to stop using them, and even if the public scrutinizes them and downright gets them banned, they'll just find some other way to make it happen because these companies are mostly run by greed because the WORLD RUNS ON GREED! You can't beat it and you won't stop it no matter how hard you try! This is the future of gaming, which is, once again, why we are all F@#$ed!

SofaJockey
11-07-2019, 09:22 AM
I just voted with my wallet by not buying GR: Breakpoint. I'll do it again here and with Gods & Monsters if need be, and if I have to abandon Ubisoft entirely, so be it.


Then you should abandon it because they won't be removed. Perhaps start with its forum. :cool:

I bought and enjoy Breakpoint. I've felt no urge to buy any of the missable cosmetic items in Breakpoint, benignly tucked away in a separate menu. The MTXs in that game are entirely fine. I'm not missing out enjoying a good game to satisfy some fake internet outrage.

I have my pre-order in for Legion.

Frankie_Drums
11-07-2019, 11:33 PM
Then you should abandon it because they won't be removed. Perhaps start with its forum. :cool:

I bought and enjoy Breakpoint. I've felt no urge to buy any of the missable cosmetic items in Breakpoint, benignly tucked away in a separate menu. The MTXs in that game are entirely fine. I'm not missing out enjoying a good game to satisfy some fake internet outrage.

I have my pre-order in for Legion.Googled you to see if you were a plant. Found you spouting this nonsense on Reddit as well. It seems like "fake internet outrage" is your default response when you're called out for being a hypocrite. Your opinion has no value.


...
Simply put, we're not in control. We have an illusion of control. You couldn't be more wrong. Are there franchises you once played but at some time stopped buying? That's because you have control. Producers have NO control because we can always find alternatives to their products.

SofaJockey
11-08-2019, 01:03 AM
Your opinion has no value.

I find your arguments equally valueless, but hey, it's a discussion forum, so at least we're having an exchange of perspectives. :cool:

We'll see what happens with Legion in 2020, as its actual success or otherwise will be what matters, not either of our opinions. :)

UBI-Zuzu
11-08-2019, 12:08 PM
Guys, please stay on the topic of discussion. Personal attacks are not cool.

LegendOfGta
11-11-2019, 04:21 AM
Ubisoft, don't botch Watch Dogs Legion up and screw "us" with more microtransactions.

/backontopic

RazorBlade185
11-11-2019, 02:20 PM
/backontopic

I had the feeling that we are only repeating the arguments that were already given. The result was that people got frustrated and started personal attacks. If you have anything new that was not mentioned before, go ahead

LegendOfGta
11-11-2019, 11:31 PM
I had the feeling that we are only repeating the arguments that were already given. The result was that people got frustrated and started personal attacks. If you have anything new that was not mentioned before, go ahead

Well...

Do you think adding MTXs into Legion would, in fact, "botch things up"? I personally don't.

RazorBlade185
11-12-2019, 12:25 AM
Well...

Do you think adding MTXs into Legion would, in fact, "botch things up"? I personally don't.

Like I said before, it depends on the definition of microtransactions. If Ubisoft would e.g. introduce a mechanism that you have to pay or else you are seriously placed in a disadvantage then that could ruin the game. If Ubisoft would only ask a small amount of money to get certain skins then I don't think that would ruin the game. But it is personal how far you are willing to go. With respect to the last example I would buy the game but not the skin.

Would I be prepared to pay extra for extra content and storylines. Yes absolutely.

GuRuAsaki2098
12-23-2019, 12:46 AM
Didn't Ubisoft already Demonstrate how the Costumes & Weapons work in the Game?

Did they ever specify that Transactions will be tied at all to it at all?

I understand, where you are comming from.. This Game has Transaction Bait written all over it...

But have they honestly even once said mentioned anything about it for this Game ever?



This time around, I want some appealing Costume Choices, I do not care if we get something Boring
or Basic, but overall, I really hope we get some Costume Choices we really want that look cool... &
such... I hate playing Games where i'm all interested in the Customization, only to find myself liking
my Basic Gear more then anything sold in the Shops, & just be utterly let down by how bad the Designs are...


I just want some Variety of Choices for the Game... From Boring to Basic, to Color Choices, to Cool Decals, & such...
& for All Characters in the Game...

I also would think it'd be cool if Weapons were Customized as we'll, like Decals & such, would be cool... Now I know
I know, people are not interested in the Weapons, but I am... That don't mean I want everyone to use Weapons
though, this is not GTA after all, this is Watch Dogs, land of Hacking, Gadgets, & using Abilities from Remote Locations... =D

It'd be interesting to see a Gun Turret that was controlled by a Phone from a Remote Area? Some locations that were
actually interactable, such as Death Traps, or whatever... A Lightning or Electrical Grenade would be cool, especailly if
interacted with Water? o_@

A Remote Controlled Car, with Mini-HUD on screen would be a crazy idea... Maybe something to do with STEAM, or Smoke would be interesting for a Smoke Screen type thing, or Myst Like event...

Variations of Masks would be cool... Gun Modifications would be interesting choice... Again, certain People, not everyone to use...
We need Gadget Upgrades, we need Hacking Upgrades as we'll... I'd be cool if there was a Jacket for Hiding with, but I would not expect anything like that... I'd be cool to take transportation on a Bus or something, like as a form of hiding, such as in a large crowd, rather then just stealing the Bus... Just an idea, not make every Vehicle Drivable, or give us Options, Drive, Transport, or Cancel...

Add Modifcations & Customizations to Vehicles? Cars that can Enable Spikes, or Boosters? or possibly Suspensions, or such as dropping spike balls behind you as your driving, switching your license plates around... I dunno...

How about some CosPlay type Characters? Who do a lot of CosPlay Character Costumes?

Hack the bad guys phones, & leave them messages to go somewhere, where you tackle them...
Allow us to tie them up, hand cuff them, interogate them, & such... Use Means of Interogations...

Come on, just let us have fun with it, lOl... It's not real life, it's just Entertainment, lOl...
Let people go nuts with what they can do in the Game, it'd be totally fun...

figloalds
01-20-2020, 02:04 PM
I was legit about to preorder the Ultimate Edition, but then I saw something along the lines of "4-week VIP status" and "4 unique heroes!" with that orange silhouette, when I saw this I held back and i'm not preordering this game at all anymore, becuase I'm absolute sure there will be "ranks" of characters (white, green, blue, purple, orange) and there will be some ******** like the 2 newest AC "helix store" where you spend real money for game-breaking stuff.
If they put premium costume packs like in W_D 2 and some DLC misisons like Human Conditions, No Compromise, T-Bone Content pack, I'll buy IT ALL;
But add some garbage infinigrind system to support a garbage monetization and I'm out.
This is depressing, I was so hyped for a new Watch_Dogs and look how they massacred my boy

GuRuAsaki2098
02-21-2020, 01:14 AM
I just hope they don't botch this up, & actually deliver what they showed us, have Demo Gameplay of,
& have told us we would be able to do in the Game, I just hope that they stick by this, & actually deliver what
they initially had said they would do for the Game...

I do believe there won't be any Microtransactions in Game, that it will have In-Game Currency, like the last ones had...

Only time will tell... We'll just have to wait & see...