Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Xbox One - Games & Content' started by chavosaur, Nov 6, 2015.
And now the begining of gaming being fully ruined. What's the point in even playing the damn game.
I don't play halo series but I was hoping people wouldn't give in to this microtransaction bullshit...
Eh, cosmetic microtransactions are fine, as long as they're not ridiculously expensive and there's still unlockable cosmetics as well. I'm more curious about the "weapons available in the new Warzone multiplayer mode". Are those weapons you can't earn through normal means?
I think I've spent about $5 total on microtransactions in Halo 5.
It really doesn't matter if you do or don't, everything you get is purely cosmetic and can easily be achieved by just playing the game normally. I was just impatient and wanted to see if I got anything cool quicker
I see no issue with this model and I'll be happy to see it continue to grow.
Nope, you can earn them easily through packs you get just for leveling up and getting commendations and such.
You'll get them faster if you just buy a pack of course, but everyone has access to them at any point via normal means, the way Warzone works in a MOBA respect, even if you buy packs and happen to get rarer weapons, those weapons can't be used until your in-map energy increases enough to allow you too. The balancing that went into the model is fantastic imo.
Erm... I don't see the problem here.
The OP says they are only cosmetic mods, not changing or unbalancing gameplay.
So how would it make playing the game pointless?
The competitive factor during game sessions seems unaffected.
People are going to say that this is the end of gaming, but can someone explain how this is different than TF2? Valve has been doing this for years, and the game is still widely popular. As long as everything is balanced, I'd say this is okay.
Yeah, that kind of microtransactions I'm pretty much fine with. The only pitfall is that if microtransactions speed up unlocks, devs are often tempted to slow down regular unlocks to encourage microtransactions. If that's not the case though, that's cool.
They are cosmetic to an extent. You can unlock weapon licenses for Warzone to spawn with a sword or a rare DMR with no kickback n such but you still have to hit a REQ LEVEL in that warzone match to unlock the option to spawn with it, to get REQ levels you need to capture bases n kill people but it still doesnt unbalance it. Running basic everything and I still kill things all day in Warzone
Perhaps the difference might be that microtransactions are now on a big industry-defining franchise which will no doubt give a big influence kick for other AAA as people get to accept it. Whereas they have more or less been contained, for the most part, on MMOs or F2P PC games. I heard of many people who have always been glad that the microtransaction cancer was contained into 3 genres and one platform (well, two, just that one is not made for playing games). I guess they are unhappy the cancer is spreading further.
Looking at it objectively, after all this is another layer of balance and design that has the potential to be fucked up and the reality is that it will inevitably be fucked up somewhere; the standards will gradually drop down as incidents surface, and hungry drone consumers will then eventually grow to accept horribly, or even straight pay-to-win models; you may call it a slippery slope, I call it "look at what happened to MMOs".
Personally, I would have played the conservative card and not accepted any form of microtransactions on my full price P2P games, as there's literally no reason to want to have them other than an additional chance it might fuck up and ruin the game. It's not like any one game has ever been made better thanks to gameplay-changing microtransations. They are always a compromise, always.
But yeah, as you say, this is not a revolutionary new model or anything.
I much rather see microtransactions for optional or cosmetic items than a 'pay to win' system where you can buy yourself an overpowered gun that noone could complete against without having the same.
A game should be won on skill or at most dedication (aka if you spent hours farming for a new weapon/armor), not because you have the fattest wallet after all.
If people want to pay money to stick out more all power to them, as long as it remains as merely that.
I'm not greatly opposed to this because it doesn't impact gameplay, although I don't plan on buying any of this flashy armour or weapons. If I bought Halo 5, I'm going to play Halo 5, and that doesn't mean I'm going to inject additional dollars just to improve my aesthetics around random people online.
so they do what maple story and other mmos have been doing forever now?
I don't like it in a full price game. The next step is a Full-Price-AAA-RPG with tis kind of microtransactions. At the moment I am playing Tales of Zestiria and I am glad that I don't have to pay for cosmetic items.
Yes, it is better than pay-to-win, but in this case "better" is still not good.
Well Maple Story's is timed for 3 months. Here you unlock it forever afaik.
However theoretically there are enough cosmetics that would cost a single player 1000$ or around 680 hours to unlock.
Microtransactions are a source of lots of hypocrisy in the realm of gaming. In the same breath people say that they "ruin gaming" and praise "the olden days". Hey, how are these any different than arcade coin-ops? If people have such fond memories of retro gaming, at least don't skirt over the fact that we used to pump billions of quarters into Street Fighter or Metal Slug machines and we *loved it* - nobody complains over the fact that those games were designed for squeezing every last coin out of our pockets. Pay-to-win is pretty annoying, sure, but cosmetic upgrades, skins etc. have zero relevance in competitive play. If I can wear a Halo t-shirt and it's considered cool, why is it frowned upon if I put one on my character? As long as the released games are complete products and microtransactions only give customers additional content, I'm totally fine with them.
And then the home consoles and personal computers hit the market and you only had to pay for your hardware and your games once. That's when I was born. So maybe people are talking about different times.^^
Uh-huh - only once, except you paid extortionist prices. Games sold for as much as 70-80 bucks a pop if they were big hitters, accounting for inflation that's well over $200. Some were even pricier than that if they required gimmicky peripherals like a lightgun or a mouse (peripherals that, as a rule, only worked with 3-4 games tops). The "times" you're talking about were times when people rented games from Blockbuster because they were so expensive and buying a full-blown PC was a dream even for the wealthy. God forbid if you wanted to play online since the only semblance of "Internet" we had was the telephone or later dial-up modems, and accessories supporting that were expensive and came with subscription plans. Gaming didn't really become "cheap" until the PlayStation came along, and I consider that "modern gaming".