I wish more players would just ignore these cosmetic microtransactions and go with the default skin or at least limit themselves to ones that can be obtained by actually achieving something in the game. Using default skin while outplaying people in competitive games could probably induce some people to make quite salty comments.
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
232 points (96.0% liked)
Games
32437 readers
1172 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean let’s be real here. Tekken was originally based on 50¢ microtransactions
So, is this game DOA?
No, we're taking about Tekken. DOA has shitty mtx problems of its own.
Badum tis.
DOA
Badum tits*
10/10
It already was, activision and capcom both did that, and no, cheat DLCs aren't accessibility, cheats should be free like they were back in the ps2 days and earlier.
Fuckers waited until the high praise reviews were in
Gaming publications should automatically retroactively set their score to 0 in this case.
On the one hand I agree, it was obviously a calculated move to bait sales before microtransactions were added, which is incredibly scummy. But on the other hand, if a game reviewer gave it a certain score before microtransactions were added and nothing was altered/removed from the experience that was originally reviewed, I guess I don't see the problem with the score they assigned at the time (assuming it was reviewed in good faith).
You can install it out of the box and disable game updates and not see any microtransactions, which will let you play it exactly as it was when it was first reviewed. You won't get to do any online play, but I guess the bigger takeaway in that case is that any game which relies on online/live service elements for continued engagement needs to have a big fucking "CAVEAT EMPTOR" on every review.
To be fair, most games these days have build in update checking, and more and more multiplayer games are always-online-or-piss-off type of games which shoot down your idea. I wish it was still possible in all games, but alas...
Right, but what I was getting at with how prone to change online experiences inherently are, it seems odd to rely on reviews to begin with. Sure I suppose it is irresponsible for a publication to make claims about the quality of an online experience, knowing that there is no guarantee of consistency over time, but the customer also shouldn't approach any online/live service experience with an expectation of consistency, because change is inherent to the model. Enjoy it while it lasts if it is fun, but again, caveat emptor.
The feeling of betrayal people have about online experiences is thankfully leading to pushback against live service models in general. Too many companies out there doing bait and switch bullshit.
If a game like Tekken happens to have a solid campaign and fun local multiplayer, I would be okay with leaving a good review up, because that is pretty much all that would have been reviewed ahead of time before there were other players to do online modes with. If a publication has a specific "no microtransactions" criteria, though, then I suppose they can do whatever they like afterwards. But anyone should be able to still obtain the day 1 version of the game and play it offline if you don't like the direction they went with its updates. You might just need to be more creative on PC to find them.
What do you mean "new shitty norm"? Companies have been doing that for years already. First time I saw it around 2017 I think. I not sure about the game, but I think it was Call of Duty.
From what i gather, they waited until after the reviews were in. They got a good score, which i guess would have been impacted by the inclusion of microtransactions, and released them after the reviews were in. Sounds like they were trying to avoid the bad press they would have gotten for including them (or perhaps purchases even, from people starkly against the practice)
Same argument every time. I don't give a shit, nor will I ever give a shit, if the only micro transactions are skins. It does not affect gameplay, it only adds a little way to customize for the enthusiasts. That's fine, and has been a regular Tekken feature since PS3. Why people care so much is beyond me.
I don’t give a shit, nor will I ever give a shit
Yes, you do. If you truly didn't care, you would have no incentive to even comment at all.
Why people care so much is beyond me.
Namco cares. That's why they had hidden the feature from the launch version.
Full priced game adding microtransactions cosmetic or not will always be total bullshit.
"As long as it's only cosmetics" has moved the goalposts from where we used to be on the matter. I completely agree it's bullshit.
The Tales Of series has been bullshit. Used to be fun collecting new costumes from hidden events and side quests. Now half of the interesting costumes are either DLC or different edition bonuses which you can later purchase as DLC.
Just another lesson to wait months after a games release before even considering it.
I don't buy games until the publisher announces it will be delisted.
Early access paranoia can finally be shared by all~ Yippeeeeeeee
Sickening.
view more: next ›