Current Events > Jim Sterling takes Player Unknown to the Battlegrounds and destroys him

(+) Yeah! (+)

hockeybub89 posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

Your point is irrelevant as SJWs don't buy or play actual videogames , but that's for another topic

Jim Sterling does. He also doesn't play his wife.

Jim is hardlyan SJW

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

I don't get the argument as to why cosmetic in game purchases are something to fight against.

Because they don't belong in a game you paid full price for, it doesn't matter if they're "just cosmetic" the only people who benefit from microtransactions in games people paid upwards of 60 dollars for are publishers amd what's good for the suits who run publishers is NOT good for us

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

They make more money for the developers ideally to either put back into the game or into a new game,

How many times do I have to explain this before this stupid and irrelevant argument is buried for good? Developers don't see a single penny from microtransactions in full priced games, it's PUBLISHERS who beneifit and profit from them,and all that monet goes straight to the pockets of suits NOT the actual developers who made the game


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

and it literally does nothing to change the core gameplay.

Except when now things are increasingly grindy for the sake of goading real money out of you
---

ZombiePelican posted...

Samurontai posted...

Most people don't

Not to mention you can just rack up a ton of in game currency (which is extremely easy to do) and get cosmetics that way

Except when publishers want more money and start nerfing things like ingame currency payouts or lower the odds you'll get anything a good, ala Activision and Blizzard

Blizzard literally got rid of duplicates in Overwatch lootboxes.
---

How is offering cosmetic and optional stuff being greedy?

hockeybub89 posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

Samurontai posted...

Most people don't

Not to mention you can just rack up a ton of in game currency (which is extremely easy to do) and get cosmetics that way

Except when publishers want more money and start nerfing things like ingame currency payouts or lower the odds you'll get anything a good, ala Activision and Blizzard

Blizzard literally got rid of duplicates in Overwatch lootboxes.

As a response to the snafu they committed by nerfing the odds you'll get anything good. Is there a specific reason you're reaching to defend corporate greed?
---

Bluehole ARE the publishers of the game you twit. So yeah, giving them money for a loot box to look slightly different than other players is directly benefiting them.
---

AlternativeFAQS posted...

How is offering cosmetic and optional stuff being greedy?

I can't tell if this is satire or bait
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

giving them money for a loot box to look slightly different than other players is directly benefiting them.

Yeah, lets reward them for being as greedy as a multibillion dollar corporation. That's definitely the message we want to send, avarice at the expense of the player is ok for both AAA and indies alike?
---

Guys tc paid 60 USD for driveclub so his judgment is questionable at best

Again, players who want to change their cosmetics SHOULD have the ability to pay for it if they want.

Call me when you can pay to start the game with a sniper rifle. This shit does nothing to alter the gameplay. And anyone who is playing the game to specifically "get cosmetic items"... well, play a different game now. Seriously, not a big deal.
---

ZombiePelican? More like TerribleUser
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Again, players who want to change their cosmetics SHOULD have the ability to pay for it if they want.

Of course, however that doesn't give PUBG the right to cut up their cosmetics and shove them into lootboxes without criticism



Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Seriously, not a big deal.

Actually it is, what kind of a message does this send? That it's ok to shove microtransactions in a game that isn't even fucking done yet? That's not a good message to spread no matter how hard you shill for them
---

legendarylemur posted...

ZombiePelican? More like TerribleUser

legendarylemur? More like legendaryshill
---

I support their decision to give the user base what they want. If cosmetic items are something enough of the fan base was asking for, then they answered to their fan base.

Explain to me why making cosmetic changes available in a way that is accepted in the gaming culture is a bad thing.

This isn't like Hearthstone where you arguably NEED to buy packs (spending real money) to be competitive. Would it be "ideal" to just allow people to buy/use their in game currency to get whatever cosmetic item they want? Sure, that would be an avenue to take, no question. It would be more customer friendly, absolutely.

I can't think of many games that allow you to do that though. Instead it is loot boxes. If you don't want to support loot boxes, don't buy them. But, hundreds of thousands of people do, so it is obviously a gaming convention that is supported by the general community.
---

You care way too much about this and way too much how other people spend their money. If they're not paying for an unfair advantage it's entirely irrelevant to me.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

I support their decision to give the user base what they want. If cosmetic items are something enough of the fan base was asking for, then they answered to their fan base.

Now this is reaching, players didn't ask for fucking cancerous lootboxes


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Explain to me why making cosmetic changes available in a way that is accepted in the gaming culture is a bad thing.

It's not, that is until you decide to cut them into pieces and shove them in the lootboxes to make more money for literally nothing

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

This isn't like Hearthstone where you arguably NEED to buy packs (spending real money) to be competitive. Would it be "ideal" to just allow people to buy/use their in game currency to get whatever cosmetic item they want? Sure, that would be an avenue to take, no question. It would be more customer friendly, absolutel

Sure I agree to an extent however they aren't just doing that they aren't just making them for download to buy they are putting them in contrived lootboxes to try and cynically squeeze more money out of you and this isn't a free to play game so microtransactions have no place here

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

But, hundreds of thousands of people do, so it is obviously a gaming

Again no. At best its a few thousand whales that keep microtransaction in games like that. Will you finally get the point so I don't have to retype that a 10th time?
---

DreadedWave posted...

. If they're not paying for an unfair advantage it's entirely irrelevant to me.

Gee what's wrong with cutting up your content into pieces shoving them in little gambling boxes to appeal to children?
---

ZombiePelican posted...

DreadedWave posted...

. If they're not paying for an unfair advantage it's entirely irrelevant to me.

Gee what's wrong with cutting up your content into pieces shoving them in little gambling boxes to appeal to children?

Nothing because I'm not a massive crybaby like yourself :)
---

I am not entitled to any cosmetic items that were not part of the original game.

Yeah, if they said SPECIFICALLY when you basically kickstarted the game, "We are going to have cosmetic items you can grind for in the game. There will never be a paid aspect to this, all in game loot" then I can see being upset by this.

IMO, all the loot boxes and cosmetic items are above and beyond what the game was meant to provide. So saying they are "cutting content and putting them into boxes" is 100% incorrect. They are creating new content that are part of the loot box culture.

They didn't cut anything, they added.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

I am not entitled to any cosmetic items that were not part of the original game

I agree that doesn't mean that player unknown doesn't get to not receive any criticism for his greed

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Yeah, if they said SPECIFICALLY when you basically kickstarted the game, "We are going to have cosmetic items you can grind for in the game. There will never be a paid aspect to this, all in game loot" then I can see being upset by this.

You're conveniently ignoring how they said they wouldn't even consider this until the game was done and how they're shoving microtransactions in a game that isn't even fucking done with being developed yet


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

IMO, all the loot boxes and cosmetic items are above and beyond what the game was meant to provide.

Yes I'm so grateful Bluehole carved up previously free cosmetics and shoved them into lootboxes. Shill harder next time
---

Are any of the cosmetics only available to those who PAY for loot boxes, instead of to those who grind for them in game?

If there is, that is a valid point of concern. If not, you have absolutely no leg to stand on. They are still free if you play enough. Is there a luck aspect to it? Yes, but same goes for buying the loot boxes for real world money.

And yeah, they said they weren't going to look at microtransactions until the game was out of early development. Obviously they found a system they feel works and is fair and could implement it now FOR THE FANS as opposed to waiting.

If you think this took much of their time, effort, and programming... no it didn't. They came up with a system that has proven to work and programmed it in, so that people who want to take part in it can. Oh my goodness, it put back their development what, a week at MOST?
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Are any of the cosmetics only available to those who PAY for loot boxes, instead of to those who grind for them in game?

Not yet, but I wouldn't put it past the sleazeballs at Bluehole

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

They are still free if you play enough. Is there a luck aspect to it? Yes, but same goes for buying the loot boxes for real world money.

Literally reverting back "they're optional so it's ok "

It doesn't matter if they're just optional, they're there to create a contrived sense of haves and have nots. Putting the player's patience against their wallet


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

And yeah, they said they weren't going to look at microtransactions until the game was out of early development. Obviously they found a system they feel works and is fair and could implement it now FOR THE FANS as opposed to waiting.

Now this is reaching, no they didn't put contrived and cynically lotboxes for the fans, because fans NEVER aske for cosmetics to be cut into pieces and shoved into lootboxes this was clearly done for Bluehole who just want more money plain and simple

Stop with this "it's for the fans" fallacy it's embarrassing

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

If you think this took much of their time, effort, and programming... no it didn't. They came up with a system that has proven to work and programmed it in, so that people who want to take part in it can. Oh my goodness, it put back their development what, a week at MOST?

I'm just saying it shows where their priorities are that they'd add these before the game is even done with development. And before you say something even dumber, no it's not with the fans
---

PUBG reminds me of a semi competent The War Z (or whatever it's called now)
---

You seem to have this idea that loot boxes are inherently anti consumer and that they are evil and equate to some horrific thing.

They are cosmetic items. Would you prefer that no cosmetic items exist? I can actually see that point of view. As it stands now though, it seems you just have an issue with the loot box formula.

You are an entitled little baby who wants everything just given to him for free. The game YOU paid for has been delivered and is being updated constantly. New maps will be made, new stuff will be added in.

You know how that is being paid for? How the game will be made better than Bluehole Studios could have ever conceived? That same system that you're bitching about now.

Would you rather the game stay as it was before the loot boxes, maybe get another 2 maps, and that's it? Or would you rather the game be constantly providing income for the developers and thus be supported for the better part of a decade? That is what loot boxes get you.

And those loot boxes don't change anything about the game, with the exception it seems to trigger your entitled ass that you deserve all this EXTRA content for free.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

You seem to have this idea that loot boxes are inherently anti consumer and that they are evil and equate to some horrific thing.

I wonder why that is? It's almost as if they're put there for consumer unfriendly reasons


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

They are cosmetic items. Would you prefer that no cosmetic items exist? I can actually see that point of view. As it stands now though, it seems you just have an issue with the loot box formula.

No I just hate microtransactions in games people paid full price for. Because they don't belong in a game you paid up front for. End of story


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

You are an entitled little baby who wants everything just given to him for free. The game YOU paid for has been delivered and is being updated constantly. New maps will be made, new stuff will be added in.

Resorting to insults already? I guess your arm must finally be getting tired of reaching so hard

No the game is now a cynical cash grab, not a complete experience
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

You seem to have this idea that loot boxes are inherently anti consumer and that they are evil and equate to some horrific thing.

They are cosmetic items. Would you prefer that no cosmetic items exist? I can actually see that point of view. As it stands now though, it seems you just have an issue with the loot box formula.

You are an entitled little baby who wants everything just given to him for free. The game YOU paid for has been delivered and is being updated constantly. New maps will be made, new stuff will be added in.

You know how that is being paid for? How the game will be made better than Bluehole Studios could have ever conceived? That same system that you're bitching about now.

Would you rather the game stay as it was before the loot boxes, maybe get another 2 maps, and that's it? Or would you rather the game be constantly providing income for the developers and thus be supported for the better part of a decade? That is what loot boxes get you.

And those loot boxes don't change anything about the game, with the exception it seems to trigger your entitled ass that you deserve all this EXTRA content for free.

While i agree with most of your points, the game was shipped pretty barebones in the first place at 40 bucks, and the game isnt "constantly" being updated, its a slow process.

That and 2 things about the lootbox system that very much is anti consumer:
1) not being able to straight up buy skins with real money. You better hope you get in a box or you roll enough duplicates/currency to be able to afford it, which is strictly anti consumer and overall bullshit. Dota, TF2, CSGO, League, etc all have lootboxes, but both also allow you to straight up buy the specfic thing that you want so you dont have to literally gamble for it. If i want a specfic skin or emote, i shouldnt have to spend more than 10 bucks on a "maybe you might get it" chance with a small chance that i got "lucky" enough to roll enough currency to buy it if i dont get it in a lootbox.

2: tripling the currency cost of event only skins. This is just fucking stupid and rediculous and blizzard is the only fucking company that does this. Its pure greed because most skins in Overwatch are event only skins, so unless you have a ton of currency saved up (which even then, 3000 for an event legendary is fucking rediculous and borderline unable to do without spending any money on extra lootboxes unless youre constantly playing and getting extremely lucky free lootbox roll). If they actually released skins outside of event only ones more often then this would be a lesser point, but the games been out for a year already and theyve only released two non event skins (reinhardts eichenwalde ones).
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Would you rather the game stay as it was before the loot boxes, maybe get another 2 maps, and that's it? Or would you rather the game be constantly providing income for the developers and thus be supported for the better part of a decade? That is what loot boxes get you.

You're reaching pretty hard again if you actually believe this, they can easily keep the game supported to just regular cosmetic DLC there was no need to make loot boxes they did it because they wanted to and saying that it it for the fans is nothing but a fallacy


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

And those loot boxes don't change anything about the game, with the exception it seems to trigger your entitled ass that you deserve all this EXTRA content for free.

And here comes the "You're entitled" fallacy

Instead of making a point all you can do is reach amd insult me, pretty sad tbqh
---

Was there any promise, in any way, of cosmetic items for the release of the game, at the price you paid for it? In the original pitch of the game, was that included?

If not, this is an extra feature they are adding above and beyond what was promised in their game plan. It is something that you do not, in ANY WAY, have to participate in.

Loot boxes have some inherent features that are designed to make money as opposed to being pro consumer. This is true. This will also be involved in MANY games for many years to come. Hopefully they do add a feature where you can just "buy that costume" instead of going through the loot boxes. That is ideal, no question.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Was there any promise, in any way, of cosmetic items for the release of the game, at the price you paid for it? In the original pitch of the game, was that included?

Don't know, don't care. Microtransactions have absolutely no place in a game you paid full price for and adding them to a game that isn't even fucking done with being developed is more contrived and greedy than anything any AAA publisher has done


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

If not, this is an extra feature they are adding above and beyond what was promised in their game plan. It is something that you do not, in ANY WAY, have to participate in

Fucking STOP, you literally just played the "they're optional" fallacy again after I just shot it down, can you come up.with a unique argument that isn't PR bullshit spewed from Bluehole?

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Loot boxes have some inherent features that are designed to make money as opposed to being pro consumer. This is true. This will also be involved in MANY games for many years to come. Hopefully they do add a feature where you can just "buy that costume" instead of going through the loot boxes. That is ideal, no question.

You're showing your naivete if you truly believe they'd do that. They want lootboxes because you're not guaranteed to get the cosmetic item you want. Why would you want someone to just pay 5 bucks to buy a skin outright when you can force them to buy lootboxes that have a high chance of NOT getting what you want

You are giving these devs WAY too much credit and it's embarrassing how naive you are
---

Fine then, don't support them. Go to their official forums and complain, try and demand your money back if this shift in their game making is so egregious.

And it being optional is not a fallacy, especially in a product that has at this point delivered everything it promised to those who backed it. They are free to do what they want extra on top of that if they so choose to. If they want to make thousands of dollars off loot boxes that are outside the original pitch of the game, they are fine to do that. Perhaps they won't get as many sales of the game now that these horrifying micro-transactions are included.

The fact that you won't even admit to the fact that they have delivered on what they promised for backers is embarrassing. Your "don't know, don't care" is simply a cover because you don't want to admit you are wrong. This "new direction" may turn people away now, no question. It is still within the parameters of what the developers promised to provide their players.

The fact that YOU think developers and producers won't try to make more money off a game makes you the naive one. Did you think they were going to try to "be better" than everyone else? They have, IMO, provided the best game of this style that exists today, and if that almost means that the game will have some stupid loot boxes that I would never indulge in anyways because I'm not a sucker, so be it.

Be incredulous, be inflammatory. The fundamental principals here are two-fold.

1. This is not a full price game. You keep calling it that, when full price games are nearly double the price of this. Stop acting like you've paid 60 dollars for this game and you are entitled to what you THINK that symbolizes. Hell, the new Shadow of Mordor game has loot boxes and micro-transactions in the SINGLE PLAYER mode. Your perception of what you are entitled to means nothing.

2. When you purchased this game (assuming you did), they have since delivered on the promises they put forth in their developers guide. This game is in no way fundamentally different than what was promised, at all. Arguably it is better for adding cosmetic options that many users seem to be perfectly fine with. You do not have to indulge in any of it, and it is still the game you were promised and you paid for, without any extra fee's.

Until you can tell me how your PERCEPTION of the worth of a game is indicative of what they can and cannot do with their game, and how they have lied in any particular way... none of your arguments really have any validity at all.

Are loot boxes inherently anti-consumer. Yes. Are they completely optional? Yes. Are they borderline predatory to those who have no self control? Yes.

Am I a smart consumer who does not need to be protected from this "scourge"? Yes.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

And it being optional is not a fallacy, especially in a product that has at this point delivered everything it promised to those who backed it.

Yeah it is, because as I've explained already explained them being optional justifies nothing

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

They are free to do what they want extra on top of that if they so choose to. If they want to make thousands of dollars off loot boxes that are outside the original pitch of the game, they are fine to do that.

Nope, they are not free to do whatever they want without consumer backlash. They are free to serve consumers first and foremost not themselves and nothing more. There is absolutely ZERO justification for microtransactions in a a game that has a price tag up front

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Perhaps they won't get as many sales of the game now that these horrifying micro-transactions are included.

Probably, but we'll have to wait and see

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

The fact that you won't even admit to the fact that they have delivered on what they promised for backers is embarrassing. Your "don't know, don't care" is simply a cover because you don't want to admit you are wrong.

Sorry I'm not in the business of making excuses to justify greed, but I don't care whatever PR bullshit you'll spew to defend the indefensible


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

This "new direction" may turn people away now, no question. It is still within the parameters of what the developers promised to provide their players.

Too bad it's a fallacy to say that they did this for fans when they clearly did it for themselves. Why esle would they shoehorn them into game that isn't even done? Because they value money over consumer happiness

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

The fact that YOU think developers and producers won't try to make more money off a game makes you the naive one.

I do, I called years ago when microtransactions started leaking in paid games that games would no longer be made as fun experiences for consumers to enjoy but made as cynical cash grabs designed soley to milk their customers
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Did you think they were going to try to "be better" than everyone else?

Considering they were something of anomaly of the early access scene, yeah I was

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

They have, IMO, provided the best game of this style that exists today

Well your opinion is that of a sniveling and spineless apologist, so it's a good thing it's irrelevant and a joke that nobody should take seriously


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

I would never indulge in anyways because I'm not a sucker, so be it.

You're a sucker for defending microtransactions that only benefit Bluehole themselves

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

1. This is not a full price game. You keep calling it that, when full price games are nearly double the price of this. Stop acting like you've paid 60 dollars for this game and you are entitled to what you THINK that symbolizes. Hell, the new Shadow of Mordor game has loot boxes and micro-transactions in the SINGLE PLAYER mode. Your perception of what you are entitled to means nothing.

It doesn't matter if it's not full price, you still paid up front for the game microtransactions belong nowhere near any game you paid for, and there is NO defending this. Also you're defending Shadow of War's microtransactions when they're not even cosmetic and actually affect the gameplay. You're just looking fo a company's cock to attach your mouth too

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

2. When you purchased this game (assuming you did), they have since delivered on the promises they put forth in their developers guide. This game is in no way fundamentally different than what was promised, at all. Arguably it is better for adding cosmetic options that many users seem to be perfectly fine with. You do not have to indulge in any of it, and it is still the game you were promised and you paid for, without any extra fee's.

Sorry they're just cosmetic, is not and never will be a justification for microtransactions in a a game you paid for. Sorry


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

none of your arguments really have any validity at all.

Irony coming from the guy who uses the same debunked fallacies over and over to justify anticonsumersim and greed


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Am I a smart consumer who does not need to be protected from this "scourge"? Yes.

You are not a smart consumer, you're a loyal corporate shill

Also learn to use the fucking quote feature
---

ZombiePelican posted...

I've long since given up on fighting DLC prices and micro transactions ever since Fire Emblem started doing it and announced it was super profitable.

Why? Fight til death. By remaining silent you tell publishers they win and that you don't care about quality

Because we complained about it a crap ton for Awakening, but then they announced they made a million bucks on it. Then people people complained about Fates and their DLC. But it still showed right back up for Echoes.

You can complain as much as you want but at the end of the day, wallets will speak louder than words.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease, many consumer unfriendly things were killed with enough noise being made, this is no exception

This is far too pervasive and prevalent. Right now, I can only rely on companies' internal ethics and morals to protect us against it.

And what's even worse is that those that speak the loudest against it tend to be the ones that spend the most money on it.

Nah, that's a fallacy. People complaining about it wouldn't be pumping money into lootboxes if they hated them

Is it? I'll have to research this.

I refuse to spend money on Gacha games or micro transactions though. And I play FE Heroes regularly.

Good, by taking a stand, you showing quality is important and you won't settle for anything less


But in this very GFaqs community, there's someone dropping $4K on for the next set of limited edition characters, thus proving everyone's point the model works marvelously

---

Sad_Face posted...

Because we complained about it a crap ton for Awakening, but then they announced they made a million bucks on it. Then people people complained about Fates and their DLC. But it still showed right back up for Echoes.

DLC=/= Microtransactions


Sad_Face posted...

This is far too pervasive and prevalent. Right now, I can only rely on companies' internal ethics and morals to protect us against it.

As much as I hate to say this, the only company you can trust about this seems to be Nintendo

Sad_Face posted...

But in this very GFaqs community, there's someone dropping $4K on for the next set of limited edition characters, thus proving everyone's point the model works marvelously

And this goes back to my point of how a handful of whales keep them in even though the majority of us have said we hate them
---

I'm a corporate shill for continuing to enjoy a product that adds bonus features I don't plan to purchase?

That argument has absolutely no validity at all. You act as if I have some sort of dog in this race, so to speak. Do I want BlueHole to be successful? Yes I do, as they have provided a fun game for me to play that I enjoy. Do I care that they have added loot boxes on top of their original idea for the game that is entirely optional? Hell no.

They could add in a feature where you can pay 20 dollars to make your character look like Barney, I wouldn't give a fuck. If they start to mess with core gameplay mechanics, then I would be mad. If you can pay to start with a certain gun, or pay to make your hit box smaller, or something like that? Hell yes I would be pissed off. I wouldn't play the game anymore.

The fact that some stupid idiots out there will pay boat loads of money to try and make their character look a certain way has no effect on me or the game that I'm playing. You want to champion some sort of crusade against micro-transactions, go ahead.

For the record, I don't care about the micro-transactions in Shadow of War either. If idiots want to spend real money to make their character great, how does that impact my experience with the game? Oh no, are they going to lock the best equipment possible behind a pay wall? Are they going to make the game impossible to beat without putting more money in?

Of course not.
---

Trust NINTENDO, who put entire modes behind pay walls for both Breath of the Wild and the Metroid 2 remake?

Talk about wrapping your lips around a company cock.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

I'm a corporate shill for continuing to enjoy a product that adds bonus features I don't plan to purchase?

You're a corporate shill for defending something that only benefits publishers

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Do I care that they have added loot boxes on top of their original idea for the game that is entirely optional? Hell no.

Stop saying they're just optional as if that justifies ANYTHING. How many fucking times do I have to bury this stupid fucking fallacy in this fucking topic alone? No developer or publisher ever shoehorned microtransactions in a game for people to NOT buy them. Get it yet, they WANT you to buy their lootboxes not grind endlessly and get shit free. What in the literal fuck is wrong with you?

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

They could add in a feature where you can pay 20 dollars to make your character look like Barney, I wouldn't give a f***. If they start to mess with core gameplay mechanics, then I would be mad.

Yeah, how nice of them to turn the game into a grindfest designed to put your wallet against your patience. Why can't everyone be as happy as you that a game that's not even complete now has contrived lootboxes? They just don't see the big picture like you, right?


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

The fact that some stupid idiots out there will pay boat loads of money to try and make their character look a certain way has no effect on me or the game that I'm playing.

It does affect you, because you bought the game and now have to suffer through ani consumer tactics desinged to goad real money out of you


Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Oh no, are they going to lock the best equipment possible behind a pay wall? Are they going to make the game impossible to beat without putting more money in?

Of course not.

I love how you contradict yourself in the same exact post. Do you really believe WB won't make the game a grindfest to goad you into spending money or that they won't put the best weapon and orcs in lootboxes? You just cannot be this ignorant and naive, there's just no way. You do realize Activision keeps their best weapons in CoD behind lootboxes, right? You really think WB won't stoop to Activision's level then there is no hope for you

Also I'll say it again, learn to use the fucking quote feature
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Trust NINTENDO, who put entire modes behind pay walls for both Breath of the Wild and the Metroid 2 remake?

Talk about wrapping your lips around a company cock.

Nintendo never shoved microtransactions in full priced games and have generally been more generous with their post launch purchase options than any other publisher, are they perfect? Heeeeeeeeell no, but they've been more consumer friendly than most other publishers

And for the record, incase you don't know I'm kind of known for hating on Nintendo very frequently around here, so I'm hardly deepthroating them like you're currenly doing with Player Unkown and Bluehole
---

You're a supporter of Nintendo who has actively put entire modes of their games behind pay walls. EDIT : You did praise them earlier in the topic when they have exceptionally recent issues of locking game stuff behind pay walls... and not just cosmetics.

I literally cannot think of anything more dirty than that. Why do I have to buy a fucking Amiibo to play the hardest difficulty of the Metroid 2 Remake? How is that BETTER than loot boxes that I don't have to buy at all being available if people want them?

I don't understand your issue with this idea of a "grind fest". What was the end goal before in PUBG? There is no end, the only goal of the game is to keep playing it if you are enjoying it, right? Was the goal always, "I want these cosmetic items!" for you?

They could make the game SUPER grind heavy, I'll either play enough to get those items or I won't, and ultimately they just make my character look different.

Do you have an issue with World of Warcraft and the rarity of certain drops? The fact that you might have to run the same raid 30-40 times before you get what you were looking for?
---

Damn ZombiePelican defending Nintendo. Never thought I'd see the day.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Dude, I already told you twice to learn to use the quote feature.

I'm not going to break down another one of your long winded post from fucking mobile again because you're too lazy to highlight a part of my post and click quote
---

ZombiePelican posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Dude, I already told you twice to learn to use the quote feature.

I'm not going to break down another one of your long winded post from fucking mobile again because you're too lazy to highlight a part of my post and click quote

lol thats an original way to avoid answering
---

A ZP topic that has devolved into a bunch of shit slinging? Who could possibly have seen this coming?
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

I don't get the argument as to why cosmetic in game purchases are something to fight against.

Loot crates are what's being argued against here... Not their content.

Remember when gambling was illegal?
---

ZombiePelican posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

Isn't it just outfits that are apart of the microtransactions

Yes, but that doesn't magically make them ok

Sure, but a bunch of great games do it. Look at Rocket League. Game is the prime example of this shit.

It doesn't matter of the game is good or not. Microtransactions have no place in a game you paid up front for, no exceptions

well its microtransactions, or pay $100+ for standard editions to make up for the burgeoning costs of video game development.
---

The Deadpool posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

I don't get the argument as to why cosmetic in game purchases are something to fight against.

Loot crates are what's being argued against here... Not their content.

Remember when gambling was illegal?

A lot of players out there want rare gear. To the point where if they don't have some incentive to go for it they won't play the game. It sucks. I'm not sure what the alternative is for these people.

They could lock costumes behind hard achievements and perhaps offer the option to purchase them but people would also complain about that.

I legit don't know what the best option is. I prefer multiplayer titles not charging for new maps and weapons and charging for costumes and loot boxes is a good alternative.

What I want from a multiplayer game isn't popular anymore. If there's not some carrot on a stick to chase the game will bomb. Players buying this stuff is the biggest issue but yet that's what they're demanding and they seem to enjoy it.
---

MwarriorHiei posted...

well its microtransactions, or pay $100+ for standard editions to make up for the burgeoning costs of video game development.

Nah, You should stop parroting the myth that publishers can't make a profit off selling a 60 dollar game by itself, the same one spewed from PR talking heads at publishers to justify their unfettered greed

As I've said before let's not pretend this is a problem for anyone other than publishers, who brought this all on themselves and the problems of publishers are not our obligation to fix

Who started the graphical arms race bloating game game budgets to astronomical proportions? Publishers

Who takes the lions share of the profit from a new game sale leaving almost nothing for anyone else? Publishers

Who decided to not increase the price of games when they had many opportunities in the past to do so because they're cowards? Publishers


Get it yet?


Darmik posted...

A lot of players out there want rare gear. To the point where if they don't have some incentive to go for it they won't play the game. It sucks. I'm not sure what the alternative is for these people.

Stop with this stupid "it's for the fans mentality" fallacy. Microtranacrions are NEVER done for the fans and you are beyond delsuional if you actually think that, they are done to please suits who run publishers and literally nobody else


Darmik posted...

They could lock costumes behind hard achievements and perhaps offer the option to purchase them but people would also complain about that.

I'm sure less would complain if the cosmetics they want weren't locked behind an RNG paywall, but you know this and just HAVE to defend your precious multibillion dollar corporations

Darmik posted...

I legit don't know what the best option is. I prefer multiplayer titles not charging for new maps and weapons and charging for costumes and loot boxes is a good alternative

No, not it is not. Lootboxes only hobble your experience overall as your game is hobbled to goad you into spending money and everything given out "free" is just more stuff to push you towards spending real money. At least when I buy DLC I know it wasn't given to me for the cynical purpose trying to milk me forever.


Darmik posted...

What I want from a multiplayer game isn't popular anymore. If there's not some carrot on a stick to chase the game will bomb. Players buying this stuff is the biggest issue but yet that's what they're demanding and they seem to enjoy it.

This is legitimately one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Nobody is demanding this shit other than the executives at publishers who you dream of deepthroating, no consumer ever demanded new content be shoved into cynical lootboxes. I have explained this same point like 5 times in this topic alone, we don't demand anything, it's so called WHALES that demand this and are the driving force keeping this greed driven cancer to the industry even though the community has said we don't want cynical and contrived gambling boxes in our full priced games
---

I am glad I gave up on modern gaming. With how uninteresting modern games are and this microtransaction crap, it wasn't worth keeping up with.
---

Darmik posted...

A lot of players out there want rare gear. To the point where if they don't have some incentive to go for it they won't play the game. It sucks. I'm not sure what the alternative is for these people.

They could give people random loot for playing the game instead of random loot for cash.
---

The Deadpool posted...

Darmik posted...

A lot of players out there want rare gear. To the point where if they don't have some incentive to go for it they won't play the game. It sucks. I'm not sure what the alternative is for these people.

They could give people random loot for playing the game instead of random loot for cash.

But then our precious publisher executives wouldn't be able to afford new summer homes and yachts and we can't have that
---

Tl;Dr ZombiePigeon needs to be put in a home
---