Sea of Thieves

[ALPHA17]

31 minutes ago, WhiteWolf said:

Haha no division, Destiny,Overwatch, Gta an all are p2p. 

2

 

Here Zodak, do a bit of research. 

 

The Division -- https://news.ubisoft.com/article/the-division-behind-the-scenes-of-the-online-gameplay

 

Destiny -- Is Garbage and I do not even want to look into their 'solution' 

 

Overwatch -- Is dedicated servers. Otherwise, the game would run like garbage

 

GTA -- Did not know about GTA, well, glad I do not throw money at developers who cannot be arsed with maintaining a decent experience even after asking us for micro-money

 

Most serious multiplayer titles have a dedicated server infrastructure. Rainbow Six: Siege, Fortnite, PuBG, and /or are transitioning to one, e.g., For Honor. 

 

Also, server costs are no reason for you to charge microtransactions. Especially considering that the game is exclusive to the 'Store' which is cancer as far as I am concerned and will hurt the game more than anything. 

[WhiteWolf]

Quote

Also, server costs are no reason for you to charge microtransactions. Especially considering that the game is exclusive to the 'Store' which is cancer as far as I am concerned and will hurt the game more than anything. 

Reason they are adding microtransactions -

 

Quote

No intent to charge for content updates (No season pass or DLC, updates will always be free)

 

If Overwatch can charge for cosmetic microtrasactions then why not SOT? Only Blizzard are allowed to make money through microtransactions?  They are selling full 60$( console version is 60$) game with microtransaction and nobody is complaining, why? Hypocrisy at it's best.

 

Atleast with SOT you can try it for under 10$ and check if you like it or not before paying full 60$ price.

 

 

 

also this

Quote

Some of the Microtransaction things will also have an option to be earned through in-game currency

 

[triggr happy ss]

8 hours ago, ALPHA17 said:

 

You can. By not buying the God damn travesty but that will be too much to ask for these days. 

Personally i have never spent a penny on MTs , so i am not concerned specially when its all cosmetic.

 

I am happy that i dont have to pay another 40$ for seasonal passes and dlc’s. I would prefer if all publishers go for this model where the gaming community is not divided due to 40-60$ paid dlc’s even if that means having optional cosmetic MTs.

[WhiteWolf]

Division runs on dedicate server? lol.. Must be some real shitty a*s dedicated servers coz i used to experience lag in Division all the time especially in DZ.

 

 

I want CD Red to add cosmetic microstranctions for Cyberpunk but DO NOT charge for any expansion pack or story dlc.. I hate paying for expansion packs now, no matter how good they are..

Edited February 15, 2018 by WhiteWolf

[triggr happy ss]

 How does an optional cosmetic MT exploit the consumer? 

Seriouly some of you guys need to chill the f**k down , and stop watch Jim Sterling videos.

 

I think we all should be ok with MTs if:

 

- they are cosmetic only

-you can see what you are buying without the loot box sh*t.

 

I really dont see a problem if this means free 40-60$ dlc.

[ALPHA17]

25 minutes ago, WhiteWolf said:

Reason they are adding microtransactions.

 

If Overwatch can charge for cosmetic microtrasactions then why not SOT? Only Blizzard are allowed to make money through microtransactions?  They are selling full 60$( console version is 60$) game with microtransaction and nobody is complaining, why? Hypocrisy at it's best.

 

Atleast with SOT you can try it for under 10$ and check if you like it or not before paying full 60$ price.

 

also this

6

 

Dude, there are plenty of games on this side of the pond that do not require microtransactions to add content. 

 

Also, if you are using Overwatch as an example, it has turned into a full-blown war. They add more cosmetic garbage in two months than they add maps. Rest assured, your 'free' content will not be a constant stream of high-quality, it will be 80% extant micro-transaction chicanery and 20% of actual content. 

23 minutes ago, triggr happy ss said:

Personally i have never spent a penny on MTs , so i am not concerned specially when its all cosmetic.

 

I am happy that i dont have to pay another 40$ for seasonal passes and dlc’s. I would prefer if all publishers go for this model where the gaming community is not divided due to 40-60$ paid dlc’s even if that means having optional cosmetic MTs.

10

 

The opening statement is a lie. Good for you.

 

Problem is that Rare has already announced that some content will be blocked behind these micro-transactions. So yeah this implementation is already going to f**k over people who do not dedicate their lives to the game /fork over the cash. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by ALPHA17

[ALPHA17]

2 minutes ago, triggr happy ss said:

 How does an optional cosmetic MT exploit the consumer? 

Seriouly some of you guys need to chill the f**k down , and stop watch Jim Sterling videos.

4

 

Very simple. It starts at cosmetics, and ends with game breaking balance issues. 

 

Then, the company goes back to the 'Its only cosmetic line' and you are happy. 

 

Remember, horse armour DLC kids, what a loony. Oh! Wait a second, the company's just turned in their revenue statements for the last fiscal. Micro-transactions making more or equal amount of revenue as the game sales themselves. Yup this is all going to end, splendidly. 

[WhiteWolf]

Fantastic post by a member of Era. He is calling out Jim on his stupid video.

 

Quote

Klobrille said: ↑

Heavily disagree with him.

The thing is ... He doesn't make any good suggestions on how they should handle it instead. He basically wants months and years of support, content and humans working on something for ... Nothing. This is disillusioned and doesn't add anything substantial to the controversy. It's easy to sit down, create a video and blame the developer on mtx. It adds absolutely nothing to new challenges the industry is facing when you don't make good counterproposals though.

The model Rare chose is the most gamer-friendly decision. No loot-boxes. No random stuff. No separation of the player base. Months and years free content updates and new mechanics.

 

 

 

Quote

Problem is that Rare has announced  content that will be blocked behind these micro-transactions. So yeah these thing 

 

You can earn lot those items through in game currency and some as quest rewards. Pets are rewards for raids nd all along with weapons.

 

Quote

Some of the Microtransaction things will also have an option to be earned through in-game currency

 

I have no problem with that coz microtransactions items they are selling are nothing but pets and color for outfits which i can ignore easily. Butif they add weapons and ships also then i will stop playing it.

Edited February 15, 2018 by WhiteWolf

[WhiteWolf]

1 minute ago, adity said:

That's just you, mate. 

You don't wanna pay for a 30 hour expansion but ready to pay 40 dollars for an early access free to play game. 

 

kaunsa game liya maine?

 

 

Shared world Gaas game can't survive without microtransactions and they also can't release paid expansions coz that will split community and kill the community immediately

Edited February 15, 2018 by WhiteWolf

[ALPHA17]

1 minute ago, WhiteWolf said:

Fantastic post by a member of Era. He is calling out Jim on his stupid video.

 

 

ResetEra, the font of wisdom. 

 

Jim actually has a pretty nuanced argument, one where he literally tells that potential GaaS titles should launch F2P, if they are any good people will throw money at the thing, no problem. But I guess that example does not carry much water. 

2 minutes ago, WhiteWolf said:

I have no problem with that coz microtransactions items they are selling are nothing but pets and color for outfits which i can ignore easily. Butif they add weapons and ships also then i will stop playing it.

 

 

 

Guess we will find out in a couple months then. If you will be playing the game in the first place. 

[triggr happy ss]

6 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:

 

Problem is that Rare has already announced that some content will be blocked behind these micro-transactions. So yeah this implementation is already going to f**k over people who do not dedicate their lives to the game /fork over the cash. 

Yes i know rare has confirmed that.

But then again its optional cosmetic stuff so how does it matter?

and what makes you think that people who do not dedicate their lives to the game would even care about an outfit or accessory ?

 

[WhiteWolf]

Just now, adity said:

Fortnite 

 

But i have spent over 100 hours in Fortnite now and they are releasing new content almost every 2-3 week.

 

I think Cyberpunk is wrong example as it's primarily a SP game, so paying for expansions in S.P focused game is fine i guess. But definitely not in MP and GaaS games coz it's split community.

 

 

 

[WhiteWolf]

6 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:

 

ResetEra, the font of wisdom. 

 

Jim actually has a pretty nuanced argument, one where he literally tells that potential GaaS titles should launch F2P, if they are any good people will throw money at the thing, no problem. But I guess that example does not carry much water. 

 

 

Guess we will find out in a couple months then. If you will be playing the game in the first place. 

 

GamePaass FTW Iam all in baby. Future of game is distribution is here

[triggr happy ss]

9 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:

 

Very simple. It starts at cosmetics, and ends with game breaking balance issues. 

 

Then, the company goes back to the 'Its only cosmetic line' and you are happy. 

 

They have made an official statement that its all going to be cosmetic stuff when they add MTs in the future.

So stop making assumtions and sh*ting in every thread each time you come across the word MT’s and loot boxes. If you guys cant handle it then quit this hobby and go play ping pong or something.

[ALPHA17]

5 minutes ago, triggr happy ss said:

and what makes you think that people who do not dedicate their lives to the game would even care about an outfit or accessory ?

1

 

Because, if there was no demand for it, company's do not waste time. It is called RoI. 

 

If Overwatch's loot box economy was not raking in a billion dollars, the stuff would not have been in all their current titles. 

[triggr happy ss]

13 minutes ago, adity said:

Fortnite 

His choice 

He wanted the game so he bought it, same way MTs and loot boxes work. You want it you buy it ,it your call at the end of the day.

 

How can you dictate to him what he need to do or question it?

[WhiteWolf]

8 minutes ago, triggr happy ss said:

They have made an official statement that its all going to be cosmetic stuff when they add MTs in the future.

So stop making assumtions and sh*ting in every thread each time you come across the word MT’s and loot boxes. If you guys cant handle it then quit this hobby and go play ping pong or something.

Reason this gaming is getting all the hate coz it's a Xbox game nothing else.. Every Xbox games f**ckin analyzed with microscopic lens by all the haters and biased media.

 

 

UC4 and TLOU both are charging for MTs since day and no one ever complaint coz they are purely cosmetic. Now SOT doing same and people are complaining coz it's a MS game. Simple.

 

 

SOT is a 60$ game but no sensible human being will ever pay 60$ for it now thanks to GamePass.. So, this arguement that how can they add MTs in a 60$ game doesn't hold any water. It's not a 60$ game anymore coz not a single person will buy it for 60$.

Edited February 15, 2018 by WhiteWolf

[triggr happy ss]

8 minutes ago, ALPHA17 said:

 

Because, if there was no demand for it, company's do not waste time. It is called RoI. 

 

If Overwatch's loot box economy was not raking in a billion dollars, the stuff would not have been in all their current titles. 

Its just useless to talk with you guys

 

If you are having the same experience as they are without wasting a single dollar on it so how does it matter? Y are you concerned about people spending millions and billions on stuff you find useless?

 

 

[ALPHA17]

1 minute ago, triggr happy ss said:

Its just useless to talk with you guys

 

If you are having the same experience as they are without wasting a single dollar on it so how does it matter? Y are you concerned about people spending millions and billions on stuff you find useless?

1

 

Bhaio, only you have the wisdom of the choice. 

 

We are simply haters. Please, carry on. I am anyways too old for more than 2-3 big releases a year now. If gaming as an experience simply devolves into a grotesque shambling monster of never-ending purchases for, I do not really need to bother. Have a great time when big corporates charge us for logging in. 

[WhiteWolf]

11 minutes ago, adity said:

You do realise that game pass essentially condemns every first party xbox game to be free to play?

Game pass would mean every first game is essentially free 2 play since few people will buy them at full price which would mean the marginal revenue would be only from increase in subscriptions. 

This is essentially saying goodbye to quality AAA single player titles. 

Sure, it's great for someone who like live games but not as good for Xbox fans who want SP games. 

 

 

Stop it. Thing you saying will make sense only if Halo 6, Gears 5, Forza Horizon 4 and Fable are all F2P style multiplayer games with no meaty S.P and all.. Playground already hired bunch of talented devs to work on next Fable which will have AAA S.P with some online component and it will be part of GamePass.

 

 

Have you played or know anything abt State of Decay?  That game is hardcore Co-op focused zombie survival game without any microtransaction and it's in game pass.

 

 

If Gears 5 is f2p mp only game then i will upload video of me smashing my xbox with hammer..iam telling you right now.. Iam never gonna buy any Xbox ever again..

Edited February 15, 2018 by WhiteWolf