I feel bad for most developers because I get the impression they wouldn't include this kind of stuff if they had the choice, but the money must just be insane (gtav makes well over a billion a year on micro transactions alone)
I would be ok with it being armour and equipment, but being able to roll for orcs to artificially shove into your army just cheapens the whole natural illusion of the nemesis system and reveals the gears and mechanisms behind the scenes.
It's hard not to be bummed about this, even as someone who doesn't usually care about micro transactions
As someone who preordered the gold edition, fuck the extra warchiefs and gear. I'll kill them all at the start or not use them or break them down to currency.
Give me the game and the DLC, don't do this stupid carrot shit.
I actually wouldn't have minded if this was restricted to like new game plus. Like if you want to get orcs in the most boring and mechanical artificial way save it for when you've already experienced the game once properly
I suppose it just feels cheap and gross rather than being really that detrimental to me personally. I want to catch my pokeorcs in the wild not just buy them from some chain store. But ah well to each their own
If it means they can keep making these games bigger and better I suppose that's some comfort.
Really though for all the complaining there must be so many people using these micro transactions in modern games, who are all these people?
It doesn't really seem that bad, since there's nothing exclusive locked away. If people want to spend money to zip through the game, more power to them, I guess, but unless your normal progress has been slowed to a crawl it doesn't seem like much to worry about.
As long as all it is is a shortcut for a single player/non-competitive game?
idgaf
I can afford to play a game for hours on end and I'm sure I will for this game.
My friend with two kids in elementary school working a full time job while working towards a degree with night classes?
He can't. Him having and option to cut down on grinding is pretty great in my opinion.
The option of me not buying any loot boxes still exists.
That's fine, just label it accurately and stop trying to spin it as some enhancement of the game. Single player w/ Pay 2 Win micro-transactions. I think I can now wait until this game is safely down to $40 before jumping.
As long as all it is is a shortcut for a single player/non-competitive game?
idgaf
I can afford to play a game for hours on end and I'm sure I will for this game.
My friend with two kids in elementary school working a full time job while working towards a degree with night classes?
He can't. Him having and option to cut down on grinding is pretty great in my opinion.
The option of me not buying any loot boxes still exists.
That's fine, just label it accurately and stop trying to spin it as some enhancement of the game. Single player w/ Pay 2 Win micro-transactions. I think I can now wait until this game is safely down to $40 before jumping.
"Single player w/ Pay 2 Win" implies to me that there is competition because otherwise who am I winning against
I think a more accurate label would " Single Player Pay 2 Save Time"
The thing is for people for whom spare time is a precious commodity? This is an enhancement to the game.
And don't get me wrong, for a long time this kind of thing bothered me as well
However when I actually gave it some thought not only could I not come up with a valid reason for it bothering me I couldn't even come up with a reason that even approached valid.
This is pretty much just cheat codes at a cost which, meh?
If people want to pay for cheat codes it's no skin off my back.
I think some if you guys are overreacting a bit here. This sounds pretty innocuous and seems like you can ignore it pretty easily.
If I get enough in-game currency to get a thing, cool! Bonus!
It seems like these marketplaces always get this kind of response when they are announced and are far less impacting once we see the final product.
Except buying the game is implicit acceptance of of this kind of shit, and if it fails due to lack of usage.. Executives wont see it as "Oh players want our awesome games but wont use Microtransactions!", executives will see it as "MICROTANSACT HARDER!"
+1
Options
AkimboEGMr. FancypantsWears very fine pants indeedRegistered Userregular
Companies that implement micro-transactions into their products have comprehensive analytics on what sells and what doesn't. If a product like this one sells millions, but no one spends a dime on micro-transactions, the next iteration will not have any micro-transactions in it. It makes no business sense to spend time and money on something that's proven not to work.
That being said, some people are going to pay for things in this game. You won't. I won't. But some people will. Introducing micro-transactions into Shadow of War might prove to be a good idea, one they will repeat in future products. But what do you care? If the system is non-intrusive and entirely optional (and also potentially generates money for more products of the same kind), how does it negatively affect your experience of the game?
Give me a kiss to build a dream on; And my imagination will thrive upon that kiss; Sweetheart, I ask no more than this; A kiss to build a dream on
It remains to be seen how annoying this is, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the game can be improved by multiple currencies and farting around with weapons and armor.
Meh, I am not going to argue semantics or what people claim as valid or invalid or what is nonintrusive or not etc.
People are irked, if you arent it probably means you have different definitions of all these terms. But I wont sit here and claim only some people have valid reasons or that this change only helps people or that it is a good business practice.
The thing about microtransactions is that most people either don't use them, or hardly put any money into them. It's the handful of people who put tons and tons of money into them that keeps that model afloat.
0
Options
Ov3rchargeR.I.P. Mass EffectYou were dead to me for yearsRegistered Userregular
The point is that monetized loot boxes have no place in a full priced AAA single player game. Whether you ignore them or not their presence is intrinsicly offensive.
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
Nah, can't be bothered to get up in arms over this. It's going to make zero difference on my personal copy of the game. I'll just do the lazy boycott of those micro-transactions wherein I don't do them cause I was never going to shop for them in the first place.
The point is that monetized loot boxes have no place in a full priced AAA single player game. Whether you ignore them or not their presence is intrinsicly offensive.
Yeah I'm going to have a blast with this game. Like the last deadspace game I didn't touch their micro transactions and i will earn my keep the hardway.
It doesn't need to be in the game but it's not going to affect my fun.
Damn, I loved the first. Guess I'll wait til it hits a super cheap sale or something.
In theory I guess there isn't anything wrong with microtransactions in a single player game, but in practice it never seems to work that way.
You end up with an incentive for the developers to make the experience worse for those who haven't bought lootboxes to encourage you to spend more money.
Assassin's Creed comes to mind. I was really enjoying the most recent one, but ads popping up when you pause is annoying, and I swore to never buy another ubisoft game after finding out they had hidden maps to several kinds of collectables behind microtransactions. I usually go for 100% in asscreeds, but I lost interest in that one the moment I realized I would have to pay more money to finish it out.
Really? I mean yeah it's gross but I still want this game asap
Yep. I mean, the Shelob thing already had me twitching more than a bit, and then there's this, and who knows what other boneheaded decisions. I'm not in a real hurry, I have enough good games in my Steam library to last me until the next Age. When I see it for five bucks in Humble I might get it.
I mean, I like this game, but strong game mechanics only go so far with me. I need story, interesting environments, varied missions, etc. Shadow of Mordor seems to be light on all those. Since my time is limited I might have to bail out, unless things get more interesting (beyond mucking around with the nemesis system) when the map opens up.
I heavily dislike purchases being a gamble. Buy this thing with microtransactions? Fine, I won't use it but fine. Buy this thing for a random chance at getting what you want? Not fine.
But I am way more annoyed at Shelob, gigantic monstrous spider, being turned into sexy supermodel woman. Like holy shit it's 2017. Stop this.
Steam / Xbox Live: WSDX NNID: W-S-D-X 3DS FC: 2637-9461-8549
Middle-earth: Shadow of War players will have two ways to invade other people's Mordors when the game launches this year. The first of these is a new mission type called Social Conquest; the other sees the return of Vendettas from Shadow of Mordor with one or two tweaks.
In Social Conquest players can set up a captured fortress however they choose, installing an overlord and a series of captains from their existing follower base. They will also be able to purchase upgrades for their defending army before sharing that fortress online. After that other players will be free to assault the fortress using their own army, loading into the defending player's instance of Mordor and launching an attack.
During the assault, the attacking player will be free to kill or brand the defending player's forces, though it's worth noting that any branded troops (including captains) will not be carried over when the attacking player returns to their instance of Mordor.
There are two different ways to take on a fortress in Social Conquest: Friendly conquests allow players to mount an assault without risk to their followers. In ranked mode, players will earn a better assault rating with each successful conquest, with that rating dropping in the event of a failed attempt. Vitally, ranked mode is also different in that the attacking player's followers are at risk - if a captain dies during an assault, it's dead for real. Think of it like dying in the matrix, only for orcs.
Happily, the rewards for successfully attacking a base are plentiful. Capturing a fortress will reward the player with a conquest loot chest and some spoils of war - points that are accumulated in order to earn spoils of war chests. These chests contain followers and other goodies, allowing players to get stronger before returning to the Mordor from whence they came.
Spend them dollars if you wanna be the best at ranked mode!
If you can turn that stuff off then I don't give a shit. If you can't and all my orc bases are going to be burned to the ground while I sleep by people with +12 Rings of Power that they got in Loot Boxes, I'm going to be pissed. So pissed that probably I won't even bother buying the game in the first place so I don't have to worry about that stuff happening.
Sounds to me like an asynchronous strategy game. You set up one specific "online" base that other players can fight and get rewards from. If the defense holds, then the player who set it up gets "free stuff" from the attacker(s).
Having played a handful of mobile games with that kind of design, it generally sucks since the defense is AI controlled and unless you're super OP (or the attacker is woefully under-powered) , a clever player will figure out how to "trick" the AI.
I'd guess it's pretty much the same as an assault vs AI, you just get to pick which orcs are defending.
Also I don't see how that mandates spending to win. Orcs are infinite, unless something has changed; you just have to spend time training them up. Or money, if you go the microtransaction route. Doesn't seem like defending orcs are killed in either mode.
It does seem like easy loot, though, unless the game's a lot harder than the first one. Not sure many people will bother participating as defenders.
Yeah, but they way they "get" you is requiring you to build a defense fort in order to attack even once. So if you just wanted try it out, then you're "in" and are more-or-less forced to get on the gear treadmill for defense or suffer continual losses from other players.
To quote paraphrase a famous movie: "The only winning move... is to not play."
Does it say you actually lose anything on a failed defence? I can't see the video here, but the article just says the attacker gets a loot chest if he wins. Like if you actually lost troops it wouldn't work; you'd basically be able to last for a single assault at best.
It sounds like the mother base invasions from MGSV, except optional because you have to specifically kit out a fortress and upload it.
So it's probably nbd. Certainly explains the loot boxes though.
Steam / Xbox Live: WSDX NNID: W-S-D-X 3DS FC: 2637-9461-8549
+2
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I was super excited about this game and was even avoiding reading most of anything about it so it would be as fresh as possible. On reading this? I'm pretty much done, because if they're just going to make "Get the best shit behind grinding for 100+ hours" as a way of impulsing people to spend money, I'm just done with the game. You got abilities, better Warchiefs and such simply through natural gameplay, so nothing felt hidden away behind excessive grinding mechanics or anything else in the first game. This just tells me "Best stuff just takes work to get, rather than being natural game progression or something cool that just happens".
It's an immensely disappointing decision, but it at least gives me a good excuse and reason to make a lot more time for Super Mario Odyssey instead.
Not seeing anything about grinding either, but alright. I think some people see microtransactions and immediately think the worst.
Like the first game basically just stole stuff from other games and made it easier. Arkham combat except you can break off attacks to counter. Assassin's Creed climbing except you jump like twenty feet if you need to. And so I'm thinking the online will be MGSV except you aren't actually putting your shit out for people to steal.
If they fuck it up and bone your regular progression for the sake of selling you shit I will be there with a pitchfork along with everyone else, but I haven't actually seen anything to worry about yet.
Posts
Fuck WB.
I would be ok with it being armour and equipment, but being able to roll for orcs to artificially shove into your army just cheapens the whole natural illusion of the nemesis system and reveals the gears and mechanisms behind the scenes.
It's hard not to be bummed about this, even as someone who doesn't usually care about micro transactions
Give me the game and the DLC, don't do this stupid carrot shit.
But lol loot boxes.
I suppose it just feels cheap and gross rather than being really that detrimental to me personally. I want to catch my pokeorcs in the wild not just buy them from some chain store. But ah well to each their own
If it means they can keep making these games bigger and better I suppose that's some comfort.
Really though for all the complaining there must be so many people using these micro transactions in modern games, who are all these people?
idgaf
I can afford to play a game for hours on end and I'm sure I will for this game.
My friend with two kids in elementary school working a full time job while working towards a degree with night classes?
He can't. Him having and option to cut down on grinding is pretty great in my opinion.
The option of me not buying any loot boxes still exists.
That's fine, just label it accurately and stop trying to spin it as some enhancement of the game. Single player w/ Pay 2 Win micro-transactions. I think I can now wait until this game is safely down to $40 before jumping.
"Single player w/ Pay 2 Win" implies to me that there is competition because otherwise who am I winning against
I think a more accurate label would " Single Player Pay 2 Save Time"
The thing is for people for whom spare time is a precious commodity? This is an enhancement to the game.
And don't get me wrong, for a long time this kind of thing bothered me as well
However when I actually gave it some thought not only could I not come up with a valid reason for it bothering me I couldn't even come up with a reason that even approached valid.
This is pretty much just cheat codes at a cost which, meh?
If people want to pay for cheat codes it's no skin off my back.
If I get enough in-game currency to get a thing, cool! Bonus!
It seems like these marketplaces always get this kind of response when they are announced and are far less impacting once we see the final product.
Except buying the game is implicit acceptance of of this kind of shit, and if it fails due to lack of usage.. Executives wont see it as "Oh players want our awesome games but wont use Microtransactions!", executives will see it as "MICROTANSACT HARDER!"
That being said, some people are going to pay for things in this game. You won't. I won't. But some people will. Introducing micro-transactions into Shadow of War might prove to be a good idea, one they will repeat in future products. But what do you care? If the system is non-intrusive and entirely optional (and also potentially generates money for more products of the same kind), how does it negatively affect your experience of the game?
People are irked, if you arent it probably means you have different definitions of all these terms. But I wont sit here and claim only some people have valid reasons or that this change only helps people or that it is a good business practice.
Still Day One on the game.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
For you. And me too!
There are other people.
It doesn't need to be in the game but it's not going to affect my fun.
In theory I guess there isn't anything wrong with microtransactions in a single player game, but in practice it never seems to work that way.
You end up with an incentive for the developers to make the experience worse for those who haven't bought lootboxes to encourage you to spend more money.
Assassin's Creed comes to mind. I was really enjoying the most recent one, but ads popping up when you pause is annoying, and I swore to never buy another ubisoft game after finding out they had hidden maps to several kinds of collectables behind microtransactions. I usually go for 100% in asscreeds, but I lost interest in that one the moment I realized I would have to pay more money to finish it out.
It's enough for me to cancel my deluxe pre-order and wait for it to be 20$.
Yep. I mean, the Shelob thing already had me twitching more than a bit, and then there's this, and who knows what other boneheaded decisions. I'm not in a real hurry, I have enough good games in my Steam library to last me until the next Age. When I see it for five bucks in Humble I might get it.
I mean, I like this game, but strong game mechanics only go so far with me. I need story, interesting environments, varied missions, etc. Shadow of Mordor seems to be light on all those. Since my time is limited I might have to bail out, unless things get more interesting (beyond mucking around with the nemesis system) when the map opens up.
I love Overwatch, but that's really the point where it feels like lootboxes went completely off the rails.
The Division, Warframe (XB1)
GT: Tanith 6227
But I am way more annoyed at Shelob, gigantic monstrous spider, being turned into sexy supermodel woman. Like holy shit it's 2017. Stop this.
Spend them dollars if you wanna be the best at ranked mode!
Fucking gross.
Having played a handful of mobile games with that kind of design, it generally sucks since the defense is AI controlled and unless you're super OP (or the attacker is woefully under-powered) , a clever player will figure out how to "trick" the AI.
I'm not a fan.
Annoying that they seem to completely omit that information.
Also I don't see how that mandates spending to win. Orcs are infinite, unless something has changed; you just have to spend time training them up. Or money, if you go the microtransaction route. Doesn't seem like defending orcs are killed in either mode.
It does seem like easy loot, though, unless the game's a lot harder than the first one. Not sure many people will bother participating as defenders.
To quote paraphrase a famous movie: "The only winning move... is to not play."
So it's probably nbd. Certainly explains the loot boxes though.
It's an immensely disappointing decision, but it at least gives me a good excuse and reason to make a lot more time for Super Mario Odyssey instead.
Like the first game basically just stole stuff from other games and made it easier. Arkham combat except you can break off attacks to counter. Assassin's Creed climbing except you jump like twenty feet if you need to. And so I'm thinking the online will be MGSV except you aren't actually putting your shit out for people to steal.
If they fuck it up and bone your regular progression for the sake of selling you shit I will be there with a pitchfork along with everyone else, but I haven't actually seen anything to worry about yet.