Well its not finalized but I didn't see anything on that video I would pay to own lol. I will still play the game, it was fun for me and that is all I care about atm but I do understand why people are upset with the micro transactions I think it sucks as well but I still want to play the game.
Welp EA did it with Anthem
- Thread starter DontTouchMyHoHos
- Start date
I still think we're going to see the announcement that says "We have listened to our community and adjusted based on their feedback, look how altruistic we are."
There are a bunch of AAA titles sold at $50+ that have microtransactions, Anthem is in no way a rarity.
Call of duty series has some,
Assassin creed series has some,
WoW (in addition to paid subscription, $50+ expansions, etc.)
Jurassic World Evolution
Far Cry 5
GTA V
Kingdom Come Deliverance
Monster Hunter: World
(Naturally EAs other titles...)
Middle-Earth: Shadow of War
Basically every AAA sport title that I can think of... not that I would play many sport titles.
Total War series
Guild Wars 2 (The expansions are "full price" games, and still cosmetics and space sold separately.)
Oh yeah, and Star Citizen of course.
And this is just a quick 5-minute list mostly off the top of my head. It's by no means a complete list. (And it's also lacking games like Dungeon Defenders 2, which was "full price" originally before going F2P)
On the other hand, I can't name a single $50+ AAA title off the top of my head that I can, with any certainty, say has no sort of microtransactions / cosmetics as dlc.
Lets be honest, the only reason most people are interested in Anthem is because of character customization, which EA is slowly going to lock behind a paywall. Its hard to imagine a game get hype smashed as hard as Anthem has been. A year from now, #remindme, when I say that Anthem is going to be dead in the water, just like ME:A. Warframe, Division, and Destiny all do something better in some way. I got push back here when I said ME:A was terrible, even made a meme out of it, but I am not in here specifically dogging on EA or Anthem. From what I've played I don't see it standing out or lasting for long. Then again, I said the same about The Division when it came out, maybe I'll be wrong about Anthem too!
I tried to find an old YouTube video with an interview with the someone from, I believe it was an EA but my memory fails, who made the systems that monetize games with micro-transactions... As in they came up with the ideas that got woven into games to generate dolla from them.
Unfortunately due to YouTubes unique algorithms all it would bring up was content from all the REEEEEE merchants that stuff we've had linked on TEST over the last couple of months. Most frustrating and makes the platform virtually worthless as a archive, just watch the latest unsubstantiated bullsh*t like it's some kind of soap-opera... They might as well delete anything over 3 months old.
Basically the video I was looking for had one of the office people who'd been trying to make a turnover form one of their online games - it started saying the game began as a subscription model but didn't generate enough income. The purchase of the game and the running of the game seemed to be considered to be two different things, so if they'd made a billion off selling copies but couldn't make a profit from the playing community there was a real risk the servers could still be closed. In the end they made it generate a practical turnover by making it free to play and selling, you guessed it, cosmetic items.
But this video will have to do, it's good assuming it's accurate - After Battlefield 2 and the banning of lootbox gambling in videogames in many countries it looks for all the world that a $20 skin is EA trying to make a new money market for themselves:
"only this week [when this video was made] a wall-street anlysit claimed that gamers were overracting to the Star Wars incident saying that we are in fact under charged, he suggested that if we all bought the base game for $60 and then spent $20 a month on lootboxes we'd be getting a good deal."
Imagine if the monetization department put as much imagination in to coming up with new cash generation ideas using the assets they have and have access to as the game developers did making the games they sell?
Heck, if you've got 20,000 next-gen consoles playing such-and-such a game make a hive network and use 10% of each machines processing power to blockchain in the flippin' background. If it pays for a game to be free to play, it pays for it to be free to play and is directly scaleable to the current usage of the servers at any one time. There's an idea and it doesn't involve gambling or colluding with the rest of the industry to set an artificially high price on what essentially is vapor when the game servers are switched off.
People: Don't buy the $20 skin even if you can afford it. If they make enough revenue off it, it'll be the next get rich quick scheme for publishers and you'll be paying $20 a skin everywhere.
Unfortunately due to YouTubes unique algorithms all it would bring up was content from all the REEEEEE merchants that stuff we've had linked on TEST over the last couple of months. Most frustrating and makes the platform virtually worthless as a archive, just watch the latest unsubstantiated bullsh*t like it's some kind of soap-opera... They might as well delete anything over 3 months old.
Basically the video I was looking for had one of the office people who'd been trying to make a turnover form one of their online games - it started saying the game began as a subscription model but didn't generate enough income. The purchase of the game and the running of the game seemed to be considered to be two different things, so if they'd made a billion off selling copies but couldn't make a profit from the playing community there was a real risk the servers could still be closed. In the end they made it generate a practical turnover by making it free to play and selling, you guessed it, cosmetic items.
But this video will have to do, it's good assuming it's accurate - After Battlefield 2 and the banning of lootbox gambling in videogames in many countries it looks for all the world that a $20 skin is EA trying to make a new money market for themselves:
"only this week [when this video was made] a wall-street anlysit claimed that gamers were overracting to the Star Wars incident saying that we are in fact under charged, he suggested that if we all bought the base game for $60 and then spent $20 a month on lootboxes we'd be getting a good deal."
Imagine if the monetization department put as much imagination in to coming up with new cash generation ideas using the assets they have and have access to as the game developers did making the games they sell?
Heck, if you've got 20,000 next-gen consoles playing such-and-such a game make a hive network and use 10% of each machines processing power to blockchain in the flippin' background. If it pays for a game to be free to play, it pays for it to be free to play and is directly scaleable to the current usage of the servers at any one time. There's an idea and it doesn't involve gambling or colluding with the rest of the industry to set an artificially high price on what essentially is vapor when the game servers are switched off.
People: Don't buy the $20 skin even if you can afford it. If they make enough revenue off it, it'll be the next get rich quick scheme for publishers and you'll be paying $20 a skin everywhere.
Last edited:
$5 per cosmetics is acceptable to me... $20 per cosmetics.. to me.. is approaching money hungry mobile games status like Mobius Final Fantasy.
No.. it just makes you a cheap looking red color.. or basic looking entry level javelin.
The texture maps on this.. where the fuck are they??? for $20.. I agree with AngryJoe.. but even more.. I better look like a Gundam infused with interdimensional Vultron power.
I am not kidding.
Maybe the game industry has changed, but maybe we as the gamers have changed as well. When did we get so damn picky and hate on everything? Why cant we enjoy the good things about gaming anymore?
It just seems like all I ever see on the internet anymore, is people bashing or belittling every little thing and it makes me sad.
It just seems like all I ever see on the internet anymore, is people bashing or belittling every little thing and it makes me sad.
supitza
Vault Dweller
That's beside the point. Even if it made you shit pixelated diamonds, it wouldn't be worth it. If we succumb to these scummy monetization tactics, this will become the norm. It's up to us to say "F you, we won't pay 1/3 of the price of the game for stuff like this". Then it's up to the publishers to find ways of deserving and earning our money.
Of course we're being picky and upset, Printimus, and that's because Activision tried to sell us a fucking red dot for $1.
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/abvy1e/yongyea_activision_embarrassingly_sells_a_single/
And it's our fault.
Actually every item I saw on that video was obtainable via in game currency so I am not sure this is a true statement, yes some people will pay to unlock it without the grind but that is their choice the rest of us can still get it by grinding the currency. I guess it comes down to how much money is your time worth, if it takes lets say 1 month of grinding to get the currency to unlock that skin are you willing to pay 20$ to skip that grind? Again I could care less what people spend their money on if they want that bland armor for 20$ then more power to them, you can still get it by grinding the currency, my issue in games these days is the pay to win transactions which from what I can see this game has none so for me cosmetic payouts that I can get with in game currency anyways is not really an issue.
It's anger transference to an easy target that can't defend itself well.
I think some of the issues are when online gaming first came around it was buggy, internet speeds were iffy at best, many games took months and years to perfect and we were ok with it because that was normal and was the standard, then there was what some of us may call the golden years where many games were very good at release, minor bugs, internet speeds became so good many people had little issues and everything was pretty damn good for awhile and now we have the current situation, many games are unfinished, buggy, internet speeds are still pretty good but because of the hardware required to play many games some people are left behind or shelling out more $$ to play them at a enjoyable level, we have pay to win, micro transactions, DLC etc.......
It has become the standard to sell unfinished, buggy and down right garbage to the consumers these days and this is why people are upset it was not the norm for good companies to do this, we understand buggy, we understand polishing a game but this is not what is currently happening today the stuff they are giving us is borderline junk lately, some games you have to buy DLC or transactions just to enjoy them or even see the entire game, its become a profit over consumer market as have many things in the world today, the consumers have become a distant 3rd when it comes to priorities for companies, 1st is profit, 2nd is profit and maybe just maybe making the customer happy is a 3rd. We have every right to be upset because the standards are wrong and we shouldn't pay top $$ for unfinished junky games but we do because that is who we are, we are gamers and we always look for that gaming fix, its our passion, our hobbies, for some its your job and unfortunately companies will always put profits over making the buyer happy. Its shitty but not much we can do about it till other gaming companies set a new standard that forces other companies to hold up to.
lol so why does it seem like we are upset with game producers when its our own fault? Shouldnt we be chastising ourselves?
supitza
Vault Dweller
If things were done properly, there would be nothing to defend. More so, EA's fate is now in their own hands: they either please the consumers or go bust.
I dislike being on the hate train, but I'm fed up with the likes of No Man's Sky, For Honor, Battlefront 2, Fallout 76 and others.
I'm actually in favour of skins being sold. They dont effect gameplay. They encourage the publisher to keep investing in bugfixes/ content for a game, since who buys skins for a broken game?
This is just encouraging EA to look at the long support picture, instead of just going ' EH, IT'S FINISHED NOW, NOBODY IS BUYING IT ANYMORE, NO NEED TO FIX IT'
tl:dr - Skins are a nice way to keep it balanced and keep fixes coming.
This is just encouraging EA to look at the long support picture, instead of just going ' EH, IT'S FINISHED NOW, NOBODY IS BUYING IT ANYMORE, NO NEED TO FIX IT'
tl:dr - Skins are a nice way to keep it balanced and keep fixes coming.
I am so sick of Angry Joe. Guys! Heads up he makes him money from being ANGRY, as such he is going to be ANGRY and spreds fulse, or incomplete information so he can be ANGRY! He has done it to Star Citizen....
I saw the full story days ago, though, oh someone will see the full story and say something... Well I guess not so here is sum1 to say something.
I saw a video, from a real YouTuber... Can't find it again, that gave the full story, it was posted around the same time as Joe's, however it pointed out so many things, first quotes from the devs about this, here's one, Chris Schmidt said "these [prices] don't represent final, stamped for all of eternity pricing. We are iterating on our economy design and balance almost daily, so you're seeing a snapshot of one iteration. This is why we tend to not discuss things like pricing, because it's one of those iterative things that's sure to change frequently right up until the day you play the game." He also pointed out ALL the number we had EVER seen in ANY gameplay were altered, not at their final state, or something similar (I had many guns in the beta that said like +0% damage, but that did more damage than the same gun without that.) So we know they are keeping real numbers close to the chest. So let's be better. Let's see what the REAL numbers are, how long it will take to get the stuff in game, without paying real money. Then condemn them, or not, based on facts. And it it ends up being $20 for a skin, or 1k hours in game, I will be right there with you guys. But right now this is nothing more than grandstanding.
This. So much this.
Why anyone would waste their time watching that guy be angry is beyond me. People need better stuff to do.
Guys, guess what. You get to choose your reality! It's really quite easy to be a happy, well adjusted human being. One important step is removing toxicity from your lives, and you can do it with really simple choices like: IGNORE ANGRY JOE.
You're welcome.
Radegast74
Space Marshal
In the US, there is an idiomatic phrase about "putting lipstick on a pig..."
Totally apropos of nothing in this conversation!
My main issue with him is he rarely addresses the game itself and does not offer quality reviews like some of the other more "angry" youtubers like Jim Sterling and.. that other angry guy at?.... Whoever he is, he does quality reviews!This. So much this.
Why anyone would waste their time watching that guy be angry is beyond me. People need better stuff to do.
Guys, guess what. You get to choose your reality! It's really quite easy to be a happy, well adjusted human being. One important step is removing toxicity from your lives, and you can do it with really simple choices like: IGNORE ANGRY JOE.
You're welcome.