So you can pay real money to power yourself up in Mankind Divided.

I'm done. Not buying it. It's a shame. I can probably just proclaim now that no RPG will ever surpass the original, even though we definitely have the tools and talent out there to do it. But people are more interested in bullshit.

Dammit.

I'd just like to point out for other DBOers that the game has gotten some really good press and the Ars Technica reviewer even had this to say about the micro transactions allowing you to stock up on Praxis Kits (used to unlock power upgrades):

Praxis Kits, on the other hand, are spread out perfectly in the campaign. The fact that side quests earn you these kits at a nice clip make them all the more succulent to complete—which, in turn, sucks players into a lot of nicely developed mission and plot content that they might otherwise miss if they power-leveled and went straight through the main mission path. Paying for these kits would break one of the things that Eidos Montreal really got right in this adventure.

Eidos Montreal even admitted as much in trying to douse the flames that these microtransactions inspired, with one of the game's community managers taking to Reddit to tell fans that "the game was balanced 100 percent independently of the microtransactions available in the store." Based on my time with the game, I fully believe that assertion—and I wouldn't be shocked if developers and marketers faced off about adding the paid stuff.

It would be a shame if anyone else misses out on a really good game because of something that (supposedly) had zero effect on its development or its final fun / second quotient.

P.S. Cody, it also had a day one patch. :p

While I'm not sure how I feel about the specifics of this situation in particular, I can't fault Cody on his principles here. He's very intelligently voting with his wallet. If everyone took such a stand, microtransactions would end. That assumes that everyone cares about that, though. I think you are also very intelligently voting with your wallet by purchasing and playing what is by all accounts a great game.

Cody's probably assuming the game was built around the microtransactions (in which case he would be right in being off-put by it), like most of them are.

So you can pay real money to power yourself up in Mankind Divided.

I'm done. Not buying it. It's a shame. I can probably just proclaim now that no RPG will ever surpass the original, even though we definitely have the tools and talent out there to do it. But people are more interested in bullshit.

Dammit.

Well, that's too bad. As I know you're a long-time Deux Ex fan like me, I was looking forward to hearing what you thought of the new one.

I understand, though. As a gaming fundamentalist, you can't abide players having an option that you don't approve of.

1. Id take any claim that the game was balanced entirely without microtransactions in mind with a big heap of salt. Just about everyone says this now and I dont believe any of them. They didn't put them in there with the intention of you not using them now did they?

2. Any feature in a game that needs to be excused with "Well you don't need it, and in fact you wont lose out at all by ignoring it. Actually you'll get an experience truer to our original vision if you don't use it" (as so many devs claim) hardly seems like a worthwhile feature in the first place.

1. Id take any claim that the game was balanced entirely without microtransactions in mind with a bug heap of salt. Just about everyone says this now and I dont believe any of them. They didn't put them in there with the intention of you not using them now did they?

(I like Cody's avocado better). Well, depends on when they went in and who wanted them in. The marketing and business folks may have wanted it, but the real game makers didn't, so the latter could've ignored the inclusion and designed the game as if they weren't used.

2. Any feature in a game that needs to be excused with "Well you don't need it, and in fact you wont lose out at all by ignoring it. Actually you'll get an experience truer to our original vision if you don't use it" (as so many devs claim) hardly seems like a worthwhile feature in the first place.

And that's probably their argument to the internal business folks, too, but moneys.

Yeah, it's not worthwhile, and wasn't designed to be worthwhile. Much the same could be said about most of the Destiny playstation exclusives, but Bungie can't say that.

- No text -

1. Id take any claim that the game was balanced entirely without microtransactions in mind with a big heap of salt. Just about everyone says this now and I dont believe any of them. They didn't put them in there with the intention of you not using them now did they?

It's usually a big publisher thing, and many games have had Micro$ tacked on at the last minute, or pushed onto the game long after release (Payday 2, for example). Games from certain publishers will almost undoubtedly include Microtransactions from here on out forever (EA, Ubisoft, and now Activision), and will indeed have them affect development.

I like Naughty Dog's approach. They shipped Uncharted 4 with Microtransactions (with no charge for any MP DLC), and afterwards gave you numerous ways to earn packages faster (including adding a leveling system for the MP that pretty much guarantees lots of loot just for playing). Heck, they just throw loot packages at you periodically for no reason!

2. Any feature in a game that needs to be excused with "Well you don't need it, and in fact you wont lose out at all by ignoring it. Actually you'll get an experience truer to our original vision if you don't use it" (as so many devs claim) hardly seems like a worthwhile feature in the first place.

I don't believe you.

If Raga's articles are to be believed, buying Praxis is basically just paying to cheat over the game, as opposed to paying to play a fair game when it is more punishing than acceptable without it.

The original Deus Ex had several ways to cheat XP points and items built into the game (you might call them bugs, but IIRC we had lots of discussions about cheesing Crota and how it was legitimate since it was built into the game), so cheating is arguably not something new to the series.

While I'm not sure how I feel about the specifics of this situation in particular, I can't fault Cody on his principles here. He's very intelligently voting with his wallet. If everyone took such a stand, microtransactions would end. That assumes that everyone cares about that, though. I think you are also very intelligently voting with your wallet by purchasing and playing what is by all accounts a great game.

Ok... What you said above doesn't add up at all. How do you reconcile supporting someone who calls a franchise ruined while you at the same time acknowledge that the game in question is receiving widespread praise?

- No text -

Ok... What you said above doesn't add up at all. How do you reconcile supporting someone who calls a franchise ruined while you at the same time acknowledge that the game in question is receiving widespread praise?

Because that's exactly my point. Cody's opinion is his own--the fact that the game is praised doesn't have to affect it, and he's voicing his opinion in the only way that really matters by not purchasing it. You're doing the same thing by putting your money on the table for it. Cody's opinion in this case may not be nuanced, but he's taking a stand against microtransactions, which is more that can be said for most people.

Everyone likes to bitch about day one patches, crappy DLC, and microtransactions, but every game that you buy that has those things is you giving your approval to those practices. It's like complaining about politics without going out and voting at the polls. Actually, it's like voting for someone because of his stance on a single issue and then bitching about his actions regarding a dozen other issues, even though he didn't hide his stance on those issues before he was elected.

I'm not talking about you, specifically, but the general "you" of the internet and gaming audience at large.

Cody may see things in black and white and use hyperbole in ways that most here don't like, but he's definitely not wrong on this issue if he thinks microtransactions in general are egregious enough to fight against.

I dislike the trend of microtransactions, but not strongly enough to vote against them by refusing to purchase a game I want because of their mere inclusion. At the end of the day, that's effectively me telling publishers and developers that I like and want microtransactions.

(I like Cody's avocado better)

I dislike the trend of microtransactions, but not strongly enough to vote against them by refusing to purchase a game I want because of their mere inclusion. At the end of the day, that's effectively me telling publishers and developers that I like and want microtransactions.

No. Paying for micro transactions is telling them you like and want micro transactions. If anything, the intelligent move here is to buy and enjoy the game and spend zero dollars on the micro transactions. If we all did that, good games would be properly rewarded while micro transactions would be properly discouraged.

P.S. Random aside:I don't ever plan to buy this game. I've never played or really even seen the series and have no supportable opinion on it one way or the other. It's the idea that all games that include X are ruined and worse than previous games that bugs me here.

P.P.S. I feel obligated to point out that only a Sith deals in absolutes. Didn't manage to work that into the reply so I've placed it here for all of our amusement. :)

I dislike the trend of microtransactions, but not strongly enough to vote against them by refusing to purchase a game I want because of their mere inclusion. At the end of the day, that's effectively me telling publishers and developers that I like and want microtransactions.

No. Paying for micro transactions is telling them you like and want micro transactions. If anything, the intelligent move here is to buy and enjoy the game and spend zero dollars on the micro transactions. If we all did that, good games would be properly rewarded while micro transactions would be properly discouraged.

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

Cody's lighting the metaphorical Molotov and tossing it through Square Enix's front window is much more effective, and sends an infinitely stronger message.

P.S. Random aside:I don't ever plan to buy this game. I've never played or really even seen the series and have no supportable opinion on it one way or the other. It's the idea that all games that include X are ruined and worse than previous games that bugs me here.

P.P.S. I feel obligated to point out that only a Sith deals in absolutes. Didn't manage to work that into the reply so I've placed it here for all of our amusement. :)

Based on your pithy Sith joke here, I'm guessing you didn't see the word "probably" in Cody's post.

So you can pay real money to power yourself up in Mankind Divided.

I'm done. Not buying it. It's a shame. I can probably just proclaim now that no RPG will ever surpass the original, even though we definitely have the tools and talent out there to do it. But people are more interested in bullshit.

Dammit.

I'm with you here. This is bullshit of the highest order. If the game is perfectly balanced without it, I can't see any other reason to add it other than bald faced money grab.

I imagine other games including a scheme like this; Half-Life 2, Homeworld, Civ? Ridiculous.

If Raga's articles are to be believed, buying Praxis is basically just paying to cheat over the game, as opposed to paying to play a fair game when it is more punishing than acceptable without it.

The original Deus Ex had several ways to cheat XP points and items built into the game (you might call them bugs, but IIRC we had lots of discussions about cheesing Crota and how it was legitimate since it was built into the game), so cheating is arguably not something new to the series.

But you're paying real, actual real life money to do it. Money that could be used for infinitely more useful things. In a way, Square Enix is on the same level as bullshit financial planners and bankers that create bubbles out of their convoluted financial schemes.

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

Better reason to make a strong Cody-like stance: if you buy the game and avoid the micro-transactions, next time they may just make it harder to avoid them.

(I like Cody's avocado better).

If Raga's articles are to be believed, buying Praxis is basically just paying to cheat over the game, as opposed to paying to play a fair game when it is more punishing than acceptable without it.

Sure, but what dev wouldn't say that?

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

Better reason to make a strong Cody-like stance: if you buy the game and avoid the micro-transactions, next time they may just make it harder to avoid them.

I'm inclined to believe you are correct.

So you can pay real money to power yourself up in Mankind Divided.

I'm done. Not buying it. It's a shame. I can probably just proclaim now that no RPG will ever surpass the original, even though we definitely have the tools and talent out there to do it. But people are more interested in bullshit.

Dammit.

Well, that's too bad. As I know you're a long-time Deux Ex fan like me, I was looking forward to hearing what you thought of the new one.

I was looking forward to it as well, since I have heard it's very good. Perhaps I can someday when a version is available later on with all DLC included and micro transactions removed, like an ultimate edition or something similar.

I understand, though. As a gaming fundamentalist, you can't abide players having an option that you don't approve of.

Not when that option makes the game worse.

- No text -

Would you opt to make a great book easier to read by using third grade vocab? Or maybe pay a little extra for a cosmetic change to a different font?

I mean, maybe Wingdings. But otherwise I doubt it.

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

So my strategy is weak because even though I say I'm not going to buy something you say I will? I didn't know it was this easy to win debates! I look forward to using your: "yes you will" technique in the future...

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

Better reason to make a strong Cody-like stance: if you buy the game and avoid the micro-transactions, next time they may just make it harder to avoid them.

If a game like this came out and sold absolutely zero micro transactions I'm pretty sure it would send a strong signal. If the next game forces them down your throat and makes them necessary to win then sure, boycot the game. I do it all the time with free to play games and games where ratchet up the wait times in order to try and get me to pay something. But for a game like this one, where we have people on record saying it is very well done and the micro transactions do not impact it? I'll buy and play the fun game and not touch the micro transactions.

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

So my strategy is weak because even though I say I'm not going to buy something you say I will? I didn't know it was this easy to win debates! I look forward to using your: "yes you will" technique in the future...

See my post after that: http://destiny.bungie.org/forum/index.php?id=118448 It's not about you. It's about who you're trying to influence.

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

Better reason to make a strong Cody-like stance: if you buy the game and avoid the micro-transactions, next time they may just make it harder to avoid them.

If a game like this came out and sold absolutely zero micro transactions I'm pretty sure it would send a strong signal.

I doubt this would ever work. Absolutely zero transactions? Are you joking?

Better to take a stronger stance now and boycott the game.

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

Better reason to make a strong Cody-like stance: if you buy the game and avoid the micro-transactions, next time they may just make it harder to avoid them.

But when they make them harder to avoid, then I won't get the game. I already specifically do not play games where I feel like the micro-transactions make them worse. If they make them unobtrusive, then I'll play the game and just not buy them.

Frankly there are plenty of games I play that have them that I simply do not notice or think about them, they might as well not exist.

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

Better reason to make a strong Cody-like stance: if you buy the game and avoid the micro-transactions, next time they may just make it harder to avoid them.

If a game like this came out and sold absolutely zero micro transactions I'm pretty sure it would send a strong signal.

I doubt this would ever work. Absolutely zero transactions? Are you joking?

Better to take a stronger stance now and boycott the game.

I assume a successful boycott of this game is just as likely as boycotting the micro-transactions absolutely.

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

Better reason to make a strong Cody-like stance: if you buy the game and avoid the micro-transactions, next time they may just make it harder to avoid them.

If a game like this came out and sold absolutely zero micro transactions I'm pretty sure it would send a strong signal.

I doubt this would ever work. Absolutely zero transactions? Are you joking?

Better to take a stronger stance now and boycott the game.

I assume a successful boycott of this game is just as likely as boycotting the micro-transactions absolutely.

Well sure. We're too excited to play Mankind Divided.

EDIT: oh but the possibilities. Mankind Divided, an excellent game, suffering poor sales because of micro transactions.

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

Better reason to make a strong Cody-like stance: if you buy the game and avoid the micro-transactions, next time they may just make it harder to avoid them.

If a game like this came out and sold absolutely zero micro transactions I'm pretty sure it would send a strong signal.

I doubt this would ever work. Absolutely zero transactions? Are you joking?

Better to take a stronger stance now and boycott the game.

I assume a successful boycott of this game is just as likely as boycotting the micro-transactions absolutely.

Well sure. We're too excited to play Mankind Divided.

EDIT: oh but the possibilities. Mankind Divided, an excellent game, suffering poor sales because of micro transactions.

For example, I'm not going to buy it, I didn't buy the other one, I've got too many other options and if I need my stealth FPS action with a myriad of options fix, I'll play the Dishonored series, but not because of this micro-transactions nonsense, I just haven't seen anything to convince me to play this and that boss battle kerfuffle in the first one sounded awful for a stealth minded player.

Not only too many variables, but the inertia is in favor of just buying DX:MD (haha medical pun) and dealing with the micros as one sees fit. There's no critical mass of people (that I'm aware of) to really make any grand statement.

We're just subversives whispering in our favorite coffee house.

- No text -

Would you opt to make a great book easier to read by using third grade vocab? Or maybe pay a little extra for a cosmetic change to a different font?

I mean, maybe Wingdings. But otherwise I doubt it.

Reader's Digest condensed books exist, and you can use a variety of fonts with ereaders.

Doesn't affect the integrity of the great book for those who read it in its original form.

(I totally get the concern that microtransactions can negatively affect the design of a game, but I don't think they necessarily do.)

So you can pay real money to power yourself up in Mankind Divided.

I'm done. Not buying it. It's a shame. I can probably just proclaim now that no RPG will ever surpass the original, even though we definitely have the tools and talent out there to do it. But people are more interested in bullshit.

Dammit.

I'm with you here. This is bullshit of the highest order. If the game is perfectly balanced without it, I can't see any other reason to add it other than bald faced money grab.

I imagine other games including a scheme like this; Half-Life 2, Homeworld, Civ? Ridiculous.

I admire the purity of principle on display, but there's an ongoing problem with AAA games. They're very expensive to make and the margins for profit seem to be getting thinner. Maybe the inclusion of microtransactions is motivated by greed or maybe it's motivated by the need to run a profitable business. I realize that for some people there's no difference, but I see a difference. The devs have endorsed the gameplay experience they intended people to have, and their vision of THAT seems to not include the use of these extra power-up items. That goes a long way from my perspective.

An analogy: I didn't like it when Borders, one of my favorite chain bookstores, starting cluttering up their stores with geegaws and crap that probably had a huge markup. Maybe they felt they needed to do that, but it negatively affected my experience there (the Feng Shui, if you will). I think it was part of their downfall. I feel like a lot of people feel this way about microtransactions, and it certainly can be true that microtransactions can ruin games. But I can ignore what Bungie and Square Enix has included in this regard, and it doesn't affect my experience (or won't, from what I can tell about Deus Ex). It's as if Borders said, you still have your open spaces and low shelves full of good books to browse. If you're interested in geegaws, we'll wheel them out just for you. But out of sight, out of mind.

Sure, if you are 100% against the idea of microtransactions, then don't buy the game. However, in this case it sounds like they created the game in such a way that you can play it without even paying attention to the microtransactions. If they don't affect the game itself, why should you care if they exist? Don't get me wrong, if they actually affect the gameplay I'm saying then vote with your wallet by not buying. However, if they don't affect the game then not buying is voting for them not to create games like that, not really voting against microtransactions.

I guess really it's really just the Cynical vs Optimistic view *shrug*

now the real question is, can I get a WingDings fontswap from Eververse please Bungie?

I admire the purity of principle on display, but there's an ongoing problem with AAA games. They're very expensive to make and the margins for profit seem to be getting thinner.

This right here is the problem, honestly. The AAA industry is horribly bloated and thinks just throwing obscene amounts of money at things will make the product better. Look at Hitman and Tomb Raider (both Square Enix, unsurprisingly). They both sold several million copies, but were considered a failure because so much money had been spent on sodding HairFX and what-have-you. It's reached the point now where you have to sell your game to everyone if you want to make any money. Hardly surprising then that so many AAA games are so homogenous now - they're trying to appeal to everybody, doing everything passably rather than doing any one thing well (Ubisoft springs to mind as the biggest example here).

Compare and contrast with Demon and Dark Souls from From Software. Lower budget titles with reasonable expectations from a studio that put all their focus on making games that would have a large appeal to a very specific audience. They sold far fewer copies and still made a profit, because they didn't let their budget balloon over the vain assumption that they'd make it all back.

Edit: So that just sort of turned into a rant rather than a continuation of the conversation. Sorry Kermit :s

No. Paying for micro transactions is telling them you like and want micro transactions. If anything, the intelligent move here is to buy and enjoy the game and spend zero dollars on the micro transactions. If we all did that, good games would be properly rewarded while micro transactions would be properly discouraged.

if you spend zero dollars on their game, that sends a much bigger message than spending $60 dollars on it.

I admire the purity of principle on display, but there's an ongoing problem with AAA games. They're very expensive to make and the margins for profit seem to be getting thinner.

This right here is the problem, honestly. The AAA industry is horribly bloated and thinks just throwing obscene amounts of money at things will make the product better. Look at Hitman and Tomb Raider (both Square Enix, unsurprisingly). They both sold several million copies, but were considered a failure because so much money had been spent on sodding HairFX and what-have-you. It's reached the point now where you have to sell your game to everyone if you want to make any money. Hardly surprising then that so many AAA games are so homogenous now - they're trying to appeal to everybody, doing everything passably rather than doing any one thing well (Ubisoft springs to mind as the biggest example here).

Compare and contrast with Demon and Dark Souls from From Software. Lower budget titles with reasonable expectations from a studio that put all their focus on making games that would have a large appeal to a very specific audience. They sold far fewer copies and still made a profit, because they didn't let their budget balloon over the vain assumption that they'd make it all back.

It's complicated. Graphics help to sell games. Big games cost big bucks. I think Cody has said as much. 90% of the games I've finished since Destiny came out have been indie or psuedo-indie. It's one reason I probably won't buy Deux Ex for a while. Don't know if I want to pay full price for a game I don't end up finishing. I bet players like me are part of the issue of thinning profit margins.

No. Paying for micro transactions is telling them you like and want micro transactions. If anything, the intelligent move here is to buy and enjoy the game and spend zero dollars on the micro transactions. If we all did that, good games would be properly rewarded while micro transactions would be properly discouraged.

if you spend zero dollars on their game, that sends a much bigger message than spending $60 dollars on it.

It also sends the message that their game sucks. Which would be false. Micro transactions suck (and in some cases I would argue not even then).

But what message? That you didn't like the graphics? Or gameplay? Or micro transactions? Or system requirements? Or music? Or day one patch? Or download size?

No. Paying for micro transactions is telling them you like and want micro transactions. If anything, the intelligent move here is to buy and enjoy the game and spend zero dollars on the micro transactions. If we all did that, good games would be properly rewarded while micro transactions would be properly discouraged.

if you spend zero dollars on their game, that sends a much bigger message than spending $60 dollars on it.

Not really because you not buying it could be because you...:

• don't have the money to pay the base price
  
• don't know about the Deus Ex brand (haven't been advertised/marketed to effectively)
  
• don't have the right system to play it at the moment (as I've moved around the world I've missed out on some games when I was without a console)
  
• don't care about the modern version of the Deus Ex series (me)
  
• want to show your displeasure about the color grading of the game
  
• want to show your displeasure about the handling of bosses in the first game
  
• want to show your displeasure about the micro-transactions

And it is super hard to figure out which of those it is when you don't even show up as a possible data point.

And if you do somehow manage to organize the boycott to become some data points, it may not show what you want it to.

That's a good problem to have for us (the consumers), but bad for anyone trying to make games. You either have to spend absurd amounts of money to make one of the few hit AAA games, or get incredibly lucky and be one of the very few cheap indie games that blows up. It doesn't seem like there's much of a middle road anymore. Steam is incredible over-crowded with absolutely no curation--it's hard to find anything and even harder to tell if it's good or garbage, and both the Xbox and PS4 stores are moving in that direction.

It's maybe cliche to hold it up as an example, but The Witcher 3 shows that just being a good game and respecting and appreciating your customers is more than enough to sell boatloads of copies. On the other hand, there's absolutely no way in hell that wasn't a hugely expensive game to make.

Personally, I'm with you, Kermit. I think microtransactions suck, but as long as the game doesn't shove them down my throat and isn't designed in such a way to try and force me to use them, I can easily ignore them and enjoy the game without them. And, at the end of the day, if other people use them (especially in a case like Mankind Divided), it doesn't affect my experience. If it truly helps the developers put food on their tables without actively making the game shitty, I don't really feel like I can hold that against them.

I obviously don't really know, but 99% of the time microtransactions feel like the publisher just making the developers add them as a way of essentially getting "free" money on top.

- No text -

Remember the huge video game crash of whenever-ET-the-game-released? I wonder if anything similar will happen in the AAA scene in the near future...

This strategy is terribly weak, and likely won't convince anyone adding micro-transactions to stop. It doesn't at all address typically weak human will, especially when they're born and raised in a materialistic focused culture.

Better reason to make a strong Cody-like stance: if you buy the game and avoid the micro-transactions, next time they may just make it harder to avoid them.

If they go from harmless extras to necessary-to-win money pits then sure, I'd boycott an entire game. I guess my fear is that boycotting a good game with unintrusive micro transactions will send the wrong signal. That the game itself wasn't good enough instead of not liking a small, ignorable feature.

I've been calling for one since pre-Destiny. The AAA market is so bogged down by bloat, short-sightedness, design-by-committee, publishers who don't care about the product etc. etc.

Course, with the indie scene looking like it is I doubt we'll see an ET-level crash so much as a shift in emphasis. I could certainly live in a world of Devolver Digitals and self-publishers rather than Ubisofts and Warner Brothers.

;p

- No text -

But what message? That you didn't like the graphics? Or gameplay? Or micro transactions? Or system requirements? Or music? Or day one patch? Or download size?

does it matter? if they lose enough money, they will have to look into it. do polls, focus groups, whatever. look at other games that are successful, and figure something out. It's not up to me to give them $60 and hope that my microtransaction history (or lack thereof) sends a message.

If you want to send message by not buying microtransactions, that's great. If someone else wants to send a message by not buying the game, that's great too. The point is, a consumer made a choice that they feel is right for them. You coming in and saying that it's more right to buy the game first is only right for you and those that feel that way.

I personally believe shorting someone $60 sends a bigger message then shorting them $5. Whether or not they get the message is not my problem, b/c in the end, they didn't get my money. Whether or not you buy the game makes no difference to me.

TBH, i don't care about microtransactions for cosmetic stuff, i do care about things that may effect gameplay.

So you can pay real money to power yourself up in Mankind Divided.

I'm done. Not buying it. It's a shame. I can probably just proclaim now that no RPG will ever surpass the original, even though we definitely have the tools and talent out there to do it. But people are more interested in bullshit.

Dammit.

Well, that's too bad. As I know you're a long-time Deux Ex fan like me, I was looking forward to hearing what you thought of the new one.

I was looking forward to it as well, since I have heard it's very good. Perhaps I can someday when a version is available later on with all DLC included and micro transactions removed, like an ultimate edition or something similar.

Glad to hear there's a chance you'll play it.

I understand, though. As a gaming fundamentalist, you can't abide players having an option that you don't approve of.

Not when that option makes the game worse.

When I know that's true, I'll complain, too.

- No text -

Remember the huge video game crash of whenever-ET-the-game-released? I wonder if anything similar will happen in the AAA scene in the near future...

I know your not saying it did, but it wasn't the sole cause. I just have this urge to point this out when this topic comes up. It was the one-two punch of the failure of this game plus the market being absolutely flooded with crap games by 3rd publishers who couldn't financially handle returns of unsold stock from retailers. This ended up driving prices down and giving retailers a bad taste in their mouth in regards to video games.

I remember being pretty stoked that games were now cheap enough that *I* could buy them as a 6-7 yo, or if I were short on funds convince my mom to. Little did I know that it would lead to a couple years of video game famine.

I'd be down with no new videogames released for a good two or three years. I could finish my backlog!

- No text -

I've been calling for one since pre-Destiny. The AAA market is so bogged down by bloat, short-sightedness, design-by-committee, publishers who don't care about the product etc. etc.

Course, with the indie scene looking like it is I doubt we'll see an ET-level crash so much as a shift in emphasis. I could certainly live in a world of Devolver Digitals and self-publishers rather than Ubisofts and Warner Brothers.

Sadly, the problem with publishers not caring about the quality of the product is really a problem with shareholders only caring about next quarter's profits rather than the long term growth of the company they bought into. Our free market has created a situation where the most profitable way to buy stocks is to buy short term, generate a shitload of hype, sell at the peak, and let the company crash, then buy up the pieces low, wait for stability, and sell them off at a huge profit to the next company you plan on destroying.

I've been calling for one since pre-Destiny. The AAA market is so bogged down by bloat, short-sightedness, design-by-committee, publishers who don't care about the product etc. etc.

Course, with the indie scene looking like it is I doubt we'll see an ET-level crash so much as a shift in emphasis. I could certainly live in a world of Devolver Digitals and self-publishers rather than Ubisofts and Warner Brothers.

Sadly, the problem with publishers not caring about the quality of the product is really a problem with shareholders only caring about next quarter's profits rather than the long term growth of the company they bought into. Our free market has created a situation where the most profitable way to buy stocks is to buy short term, generate a shitload of hype, sell at the peak, and let the company crash, then buy up the pieces low, wait for stability, and sell them off at a huge profit to the next company you plan on destroying.

Bam. This, right here.

Regarding the display of purity Kermit mentioned (<3 that phrasing) I have two thoughts: this specific instance pushed a button I didn't realize was there. I'm also possibly the biggest Company of Heroes 2 fan here and THAT sucker is BLOATED with micro transactions.

So hey.

Maybe with COH2 it's like a small subscription fee I can pay when I feel like? I am in it mostly for the online modes, and it's nice to give them money once in a while for what I feel is a great product.

DX:MD just... doesn't justify its micros at first past. I dunno.

- No text -

I've been calling for one since pre-Destiny. The AAA market is so bogged down by bloat, short-sightedness, design-by-committee, publishers who don't care about the product etc. etc.

Course, with the indie scene looking like it is I doubt we'll see an ET-level crash so much as a shift in emphasis. I could certainly live in a world of Devolver Digitals and self-publishers rather than Ubisofts and Warner Brothers.

Sadly, the problem with publishers not caring about the quality of the product is really a problem with shareholders only caring about next quarter's profits rather than the long term growth of the company they bought into. Our free market has created a situation where the most profitable way to buy stocks is to buy short term, generate a shitload of hype, sell at the peak, and let the company crash, then buy up the pieces low, wait for stability, and sell them off at a huge profit to the next company you plan on destroying.

Bam. This, right here.

Regarding the display of purity Kermit mentioned (<3 that phrasing) I have two thoughts: this specific instance pushed a button I didn't realize was there. I'm also possibly the biggest Company of Heroes 2 fan here and THAT sucker is BLOATED with micro transactions.

So hey.

Maybe with COH2 it's like a small subscription fee I can pay when I feel like? I am in it mostly for the online modes, and it's nice to give them money once in a while for what I feel is a great product.

DX:MD just... doesn't justify its micros at first past. I dunno.

I dunno either. I don't know where greed ends and survival kicks in. Seems like there are more big games that cost more than ever to make, and I don't know what the market will bear. I know Halo's longevity lessened under Bungie's oversight. A few years ago there seemed to be quite a bit of debate over what was sustainable. Where creativity and commerce meet is often messy and less than ideal from either perspective (investors want profits on a schedule, and creatives want flexibility). I certainly don't have the answer.

Before Destiny came out Bones and I used to joke about starting a petition calling for Bungie to delay it so we could catch up.

Let a crash occur. Microsoft's plans for "no more generations of consoles" and such already has me rolling my eyes. Microsoft as a whole has me entirely turned off, though. The entire treatment regarding Windows 10 upgrades and privacy on that thing are enough to make me want to never purchase their products again. And it might very well end up that way in the next few years. Not yet, though. But that's a different discussion.

A crash. Yes. Frankly, I'd place most of the blame on the publishers rather than the actual developers. That definitely does not excuse all developers, though. I'd like to believe that the video game industry would come out better after the fact. Some AAA devs will make it through, I'm sure.

Maybe with COH2 it's like a small subscription fee I can pay when I feel like? I am in it mostly for the online modes, and it's nice to give them money once in a while for what I feel is a great product.

DX:MD just... doesn't justify its micros at first past. I dunno.

I dunno either. I don't know where greed ends and survival kicks in. Seems like there are more big games that cost more than ever to make, and I don't know what the market will bear. I know Halo's longevity lessened under Bungie's oversight. A few years ago there seemed to be quite a bit of debate over what was sustainable. Where creativity and commerce meet is often messy and less than ideal from either perspective (investors want profits on a schedule, and creatives want flexibility). I certainly don't have the answer.

I think you both may be on to something on the feeling of "justified" microtransactions when a game first launches. I feel like the "subscription fee" argument is how a lot of people look at microtransactions if it's a game they really enjoy. I really enjoy Destiny, but I'll never give Bungie a penny of microtransaction money. At the same time, I have friends who do and have described it to me like paying a fee since there isn't a monthly sub fee like with some other MMOs from back in the day (or current). I can't get behind that idea personally, but I understand the mentality. It's whatever to me.

I also really love Overwatch. It has microtransactions that I don't necessarily agree with due to the gambling nature of it all, which is also what I'm completely against in Destiny. All the same, I can play Overwatch all day long and not care about what my loot boxes give me. I know Blizzard is making a profit on this game and would be even without the microtransactions. All future updates are free, and patches come quite often. I'm pleased, even if their microtransaction model blows.

And as for Halo, Bungie clocked out I think somewhere during or after Halo 3. They were contractually obligated to make ODST and Reach, which I feel now were Destiny test-mechanic games. Doesn't mean they didn't make them with love or care, but I don't think future success and sustainability was necessarily a major concern. I could be totally wrong on that, but I'm just going on personal observation (especially with how Bungie seemed to cut out competitive play so hard after 3). I'm not sure where greed/survival apply to the Halo/Bungie argument.

I used the bungie example not as a comment on the quality of the games (I think they kept getting better), but to illustrate the trend of less "time in tray." I think more competition was the biggest factor affecting that.

I'm thinking justified/unjustified feeling comes from the type of game it is and how much we like it. I mean no duh to the last part, so I'll elaborate on the first part:

Seems to me multiplayer games get a relative amount of grace (Overwatch, CoH2, Destiny) even if we don't agree with the micro transactions (see: Avateur's comments). Perhaps we instinctively understand supporting these games costs money, and we feel ever more grace about it when tons of stuff comes out for free (Overwatch or hell, Mass Effect 3's MP). A lot of it for me personally is "hey thanks for keeping this cool and fresh have some cash yo." It's basically tipping for good service.

Pivoting back to Deus Ex, it's a single player game where the micro transactions actively detract from the experience. In my opinion, the devs basically admitted this. It grinds my gears because a truly excellent single player game is something to behold. Half-Life. Homeworld. Civ. Wolf: The New Order, Dishonored. Pay real money to break the structure?

To quote a Scot I fancy very much, "FUCKIN... BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!"

I would take it a step further with multiplayer games by pointing out it's all about how they do the microtransactions. Do I still feel Bungie's and even Blizzard's models with Destiny and Overwatch are hostile to the player? Absolutely. But it makes it easier as a whole for people to accept them, and for even myself to accept them (aka not boycott the entire game) because it's aesthetic. There's no actual impact on the multiplayer gameplay. That's super important, and something that other devs and publishers don't seem to get or care about if they do get it.

And Mass Effect 3 is one of the rarest of unicorns in which I would argue microtransactions are done so stupidly well that it defies belief that the majority of companies can't figure it out. But ME3 is also a very special game.

I'm thinking justified/unjustified feeling comes from the type of game it is and how much we like it. I mean no duh to the last part, so I'll elaborate on the first part:

Seems to me multiplayer games get a relative amount of grace (Overwatch, CoH2, Destiny) even if we don't agree with the micro transactions (see: Avateur's comments). Perhaps we instinctively understand supporting these games costs money, and we feel ever more grace about it when tons of stuff comes out for free (Overwatch or hell, Mass Effect 3's MP). A lot of it for me personally is "hey thanks for keeping this cool and fresh have some cash yo." It's basically tipping for good service.

Pivoting back to Deus Ex, it's a single player game where the micro transactions actively detract from the experience. In my opinion, the devs basically admitted this. It grinds my gears because a truly excellent single player game is something to behold. Half-Life. Homeworld. Civ. Wolf: The New Order, Dishonored. Pay real money to break the structure?

To quote a Scot I fancy very much, "FUCKIN... BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!"

I respect this view and the rationale behind it. I'd bet good money there are people at Eidos Montreal who share this viewpoint and argued strongly against having these sorts of microtransactions, or maybe it was even worse, and this was the last stop compromise implemented to avoid something truly egregious. Sometimes the people who care about the right things just have to do what they can to eliminate any real damage. (I think there are people doing this at Bungie, too.)

I don't like these particular microstransactions because it does seem like they could interfere with players having the ideal experience, but if they enable players to only finish the game faster, then I don't know how much I'm willing to complain. The one thing I don't want to do is punish the studio who I think have done a good job reviving the series.

It's a bit uplifting, to be honest, seeing someone base their model on such a great one. Granted, on launch, the grind behind it was pretty bad, but they have rebalanced it over the year so now you never really few shorthanded by not buying the packs.

I'm thinking justified/unjustified feeling comes from the type of game it is and how much we like it. I mean no duh to the last part, so I'll elaborate on the first part:

Seems to me multiplayer games get a relative amount of grace (Overwatch, CoH2, Destiny) even if we don't agree with the micro transactions (see: Avateur's comments). Perhaps we instinctively understand supporting these games costs money, and we feel ever more grace about it when tons of stuff comes out for free (Overwatch or hell, Mass Effect 3's MP). A lot of it for me personally is "hey thanks for keeping this cool and fresh have some cash yo." It's basically tipping for good service.

Pivoting back to Deus Ex, it's a single player game where the micro transactions actively detract from the experience. In my opinion, the devs basically admitted this. It grinds my gears because a truly excellent single player game is something to behold. Half-Life. Homeworld. Civ. Wolf: The New Order, Dishonored. Pay real money to break the structure?

To quote a Scot I fancy very much, "FUCKIN... BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!"

I respect this view and the rationale behind it. I'd bet good money there are people at Eidos Montreal who share this viewpoint and argued strongly against having these sorts of microtransactions, or maybe it was even worse, and this was the last stop compromise implemented to avoid something truly egregious. Sometimes the people who care about the right things just have to do what they can to eliminate any real damage. (I think there are people doing this at Bungie, too.)

Yeah, to quote another great game with a bit tongue in cheek (Bioshock), "It's better to be a hypocrite than an unemployed one."

I don't like these particular microstransactions because it does seem like they could interfere with players having the ideal experience, but if they enable players to only finish the game faster, then I don't know how much I'm willing to complain. The one thing I don't want to do is punish the studio who I think have done a good job reviving the series.

After all this, I'll probably get the game once it goes on sale. This was good conversation by the way, thanks all.

- No text -

I think I'm legally obligated to point out that Halo's dead and no one at all in the entire known universe (Covenant or otherwise) has any idea of what you are speaking about. :P