Microtransactions in DMCV

[dg1995]

All you warriors that want to remove MTs from games will fail miserably at it and just end up killing Devil May Cry franchise with your backlash.

This whole MicroTransaction war has already lost. Starcitizen , GTA V , FIFA ultimate team , Monster Hunter World and overwatch all have MTs and make a lot of money(FIFA's MTs make 1 billion dollar per year) so publishers will not forget about them at all. Pretty sure that all the big publishers will use them in all of their games in the near future similar to the DLCs.(Even Bethesda , CDprojkt , Sony and Nintendo will end up joining others)

You guys shouldn't trust the youtubers like AJ and Jim Sterling they just make money by making hateful and insulting videos for the pleasure of angry communities on the internet.(Just look at their youtube libraries. All of them have made videos for CnC mobile, Star Wars Battlefront 2, Shadow Of War , Metal Gear Survive etc)

These YTubers just make gaming worse and worse by making niche franchises fail.

 

[Dark Drakan]

All you warriors that want to remove MTs from games will fail miserably at it and just end up killing Devil May Cry franchise with your backlash.

They dont need them in the game to make a profit, they made the decision to include them and opened themselves up to criticism that they are receiving. It is their decision that will ultimately put the franchise in danger as more people dont want them than those that do.

All of them have made videos for CnC mobile, Star Wars Battlefront 2, Shadow Of War , Metal Gear Survive etc)

Yeah and all of those examples were right to be called out and were nothing more than blatant attempts at cash grabs that ultimately failed and had to reverse those decisions due to the microtransactions/loot boxes ruining the in game economy & balance. Though CnC mobile was just an abomination from the get go but thats a whole different topic entirely.

Loot boxes/card packs are being banned in more and more countries as they are being seen for what they are, gambling.

These YTubers just make gaming worse and worse by making niche franchises fail.

Greedy publishers and shareholders are making gaming worse not the people pointing out their shady business tactics to make money off your average gamers. In most cases the developers themselves have no control over the in game monetization models used in their own games, they are told the model to use by parent companies and shareholders/publishers. These days you are more likely to sell more units based on the goodwill of not having loot boxes or microtransactions in your games.

Funny that Shadow Of War's lootboxes aren't the main reason that it was so grindy.(Since buying them wouldn't have made the progression in the final chapter faster according to players that actually played the game)

Strange then that it took months of reworking to rebalance the game after they removed loot boxes & microtransactions in Shadow of War as it messed with other systems too and ending was reworked too.

These Youtubers just want you to believe that game Publishers should be charity companies and should just make games for the pleasure of gamers and don't care whether it may make them enough money or not.

Make a good game and people will buy it based on word of mouth, games like Spiderman, Horizon Zero Dawn, The Witcher 3, God Of War, Breath of the Wild didnt need any lootboxes or microtransactions to make money. When you are selling a full price game its hardly charity and giving it away for free.

These youtubers also tell you a lot that games aren't really becoming more expensive to make which is a complete lie.(Since fancier graphics require more manpower and time and even now making game engines from the ground up has become much harder. Using 3rd party engines also add a lot of development problems since the engine may not have the functions that the developers need)

CD Projekt not only massively increased the scale of The Witcher series (a series many considered to be niche) they self published it and made some huge DLC packs no-one minded paying more for and it made a ton of money without ANY lootboxes or microtransactions in sight. The most ambitious title I have seen for a long time is Cyberpunk 2077 and no sign of them in it either.

Games are expensive to develop but unless you are making a Star Citizen, GTA or Red Dead Redemption and hiring world class voice actors and using expensive motion capture tech etc, making a standard game doesnt have an unlimited budget & should be budgeting accordingly. If you look at the most expensive games ever made list the majority of them were made many years ago with no microtransactions and loot boxes involved.

With engines like Unity and Unreal available to anyone, the tools are far more accessible than ever along with Xbox preview program and the early access model on Steam (though that too has been abused).

 

[dg1995]

Funny that Shadow Of War's lootboxes aren't the main reason that it was so grindy.(Since buying them wouldn't have made the progression in the final chapter faster according to players that actually played the game)

And BTW I've played Metal Gear Survive and it was a much better open world game than that 2015 GOTY known as PP.(Youtubers just bashed that game due to the whole Konami Vs Kojima and the MTs and the unnecesarry extra character slots were just poorly researched)

These Youtubers just want you to believe that game Publishers should be charity companies and should just make games for the pleasure of gamers and don't care whether it may make them enough money or not.

Edit: These youtubers also tell you a lot that games aren't really becoming more expensive to make which is a complete lie.(Since fancier graphics require more manpower and time and even now making game engines from the ground up has become much harder. Using 3rd party engines also add a lot of development problems since the engine may not have the functions that the developers need)

 

[dg1995]

Make a good game and people will buy it based on word of mouth, games like Spiderman, Horizon Zero Dawn, The Witcher 3, God Of War, Breath of the Wild didnt need any lootboxes or microtransactions to make money. When you are selling a full price game its hardly charity and giving it away for free.

And yet this tactic didn't save games like Vanquish, Okami , God Hand. Games really need marketing to sell well.
Even TEW 2 which had a better word of mouth compare to TEW 1 wasn't successful.
And many people also consider Max Payne 3 as an awesome game but it failed miserably.
Also all those games that you mentioned are exclusives. developers just need to make those games for one console.And they are also either less experimental like that Spiderman game(Which used the sunset overdrive engine and some open world mechanics) Or don't have fancy graphics like zelda.(Which that game was somehow in a development hell too. It was they worked 5-6 years for that)

Strange then that it took months of reworking to rebalance the game after they removed loot boxes & microtransactions in Shadow of War as it messed with other systems too and ending was reworked too.

I told you. MTs weren't the main reason that it sucked. games had more problems than lootboxes And act 4 ruined the game for players.
MTs weren't the main reason that Act 4 was bad.(And buying them wouldn't made the game any better according to people that actually played it)
So they removed the useless lootboxes and forced to make a lot of changes to the main game to fix it. And you just blame everything to lootboxes.(Not saying lootboxes are good but you are treating the MTs similar to them and considering them to be the same which they aren't)

Greedy publishers and shareholders are making gaming worse not the people pointing out their shady business tactics to make money off your average gamers. In most cases the developers themselves have no control over the in game monetization models used in their own games, they are told the model to use by parent companies and shareholders/publishers. These days you are more likely to sell more units based on the goodwill of not having loot boxes or microtransactions in your games.

so what ? Publishers always controlled developers and never allowed them to do everything they wanted(Like not allowing developers to make sequels to failure games) but publishers have the right to do it. because publishers provide man power,technology and marketing for their games to sell well. Without publishers we wouldn't get the games that we love.
As for publishers following other publishers, well that is the way of game publishers to follow a successful trend from other publishers. That's why we gain lots of Doom,Street Fighter,Virtua Fighter,GTA , COD , Devil May Cry , tomb raider clones over the years.
MTs are successful in some games so they try to make their own version of it.(And I think it's already profitable for them in Monster Hunter World)

 

[Dark Drakan]

And yet this tactic didn't save games like Vanquish, Okami , God Hand. Games really need marketing to sell well.
Even TEW 2 which had a better word of mouth compare to TEW 1 wasn't successful.
And many people also consider Max Payne 3 as an awesome game but it failed miserably.
Also all those games that you mentioned are exclusives. developers just need to make those games for one console.And they are also either less experimental like that Spiderman game(Which used the sunset overdrive engine and some open world mechanics) Or don't have fancy graphics like zelda.(Which that game was somehow in a development hell too. It was they worked 5-6 years for that)

There were more examples they were just main ones I had seen in last few months & Witcher 3 wasn’t an exclusive.

I told you. MTs weren't the main reason that it sucked. games had more problems than lootboxes And act 4 ruined the game for players.
MTs weren't the main reason that Act 4 was bad.(And buying them wouldn't made the game any better according to people that actually played it)
So they removed the useless lootboxes and forced to make a lot of changes to the main game to fix it. And you just blame everything to lootboxes.(Not saying lootboxes are good but you are treating the MTs similar to them and considering them to be the same which they aren't)

I too played it to death and really enjoyed it but that intentional grind killed the last parts of the game for me. Also the loot boxes completely ruined the nemesis system which is by far the best part of the game. Soon as I heard they were removing the loot boxes AND the market place and rebalancing the game I stopped playing until that update released. Since then I have personally found it to be FAR better and the grind isnt quite as bad and great not having the orcs relegated to purchasable items.

They aren’t the same as each other but they stem from the overall same concept. One you have a percentage chance and drop rate in game and can buy more should you not want to grind for the currency as drop rates are low. The other gives you a percentage chance of acquiring something AFTER buying it in a random number generator gambling mechanic.

so what ? Publishers always controlled developers and never allowed them to do everything they wanted(Like not allowing developers to make sequels to failure games) but publishers have the right to do it. because publishers provide man power,technology and marketing for their games to sell well. Without publishers we wouldn't get the games that we love.
As for publishers following other publishers, well that is the way of game publishers to follow a successful trend from other publishers. That's why we gain lots of Doom,Street Fighter,Virtua Fighter,GTA , COD , Devil May Cry , tomb raider clones over the years.
MTs are successful in some games so they try to make their own version of it.(And I think it's already profitable for them in Monster Hunter World)

Indeed there have always been publishers (besides those developers who self publish) but never have I seen more varied ways to try and gain more cash from players. I miss the days when it was pay for a game & then maybe pay for some huge worthwhile DLC. Not pay for game, have content held back for preorders, have early release if they get enough preorders (Eidos), day one DLC, season passes where you pay for content that you have no idea about, paid for online passes (though now discontinued), pay for map packs that split player base, pay for cosmetics, pay for currency bundles. All of these things used to be unlocked by playing the game not locked behind paywalls and gained by paying extra.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Any practice that has the potential of negatively impacting sales and lowering profits is a bad business practice. If there's enough stigma against something that people are willing to forgo buying the game for the mere existence of said thing then it's a risk to the profitability of the game. Now I'm certain that Capcom has ran the numbers and understands the risks involved so if they think they're safe then the game is going on sell fine regardless. However, I think you're investing too much in trying to argue points here. I'm not even sure what you're arguing for, if people are that hell bent on not buying the game because of microtransactions or being mad about it, telling them not to worry isn't going to help.

I'm arguing that everyone has their hackles up for no reason. I'm not entirely invested in this, but it bugs the crap out of me to watch people act so damn irrationally. Developers are our friends until they suddenly aren't. They're the ones making games for us until they're the ones trying to bilk us for every penny. Itsuno is evil for allowing this innocuous transaction to exist in a single player game. Everyone arguing about "slippery slopes," not realizing it's a fallacy, that it denies people their ability to think critically about each and every situation, as if it has to be all or nothing at this point.

Implemented the way it has been, is, and supposedly will be, this microtransaction is entirely ignored because it doesn't do anything negative to the game. Hell man, to say that "any practice has the potential to negatively impact sales" is a can of worms, because so many things can so easily impact profits. Like, no ****, right? Business is a constant tug of war with risk, and creating a piece of entertainment for a mass of people that all have nuanced tastes and ideas of what is entertaining is a tall order. Just six years ago we were all at each other's throats because the last entry in this franchise dared to do things differently.

And you're right, I'm pretty much talking to a wall, but that won't really stop me from thinking that people are being completely irrational and absolutist about this whole thing.

They dont need them in the game to make a profit, they made the decision to include them and opened themselves up to criticism that they are receiving. It is their decision that will ultimately put the franchise in danger as more people dont want them than those that do.

This is something that I've been wondering for a little while now. In the case of Battlefront 2, EA said that the retraction of lootboxes from the game wouldn't impact profits, or it accounted for such a small percentage as to be negligible, so it was all really extra money in their pockets and whatnot. Jim had used that information as a talking point that games are not in trouble, countering the argument that DLC and such allow the game to turn a profit, or turn one faster, given their budgets. I often think about how in the PS2 era, it was sort of the Goldilocks Zone for development: the hardware was powerful enough to make beautiful-looking games (some even by today's standards); it wasn't exorbitantly costly to develop a game; and they could be stuffed to the brim with content. Then came the PS3/360 era, and we saw games with updated graphics and features that pushed the tech far, but games didn't quite last as long, and they didn't have as much content. Even now, in the current generation, development is really costly, and there still seems to be a struggle between making a game look acceptable and having enough content for the game's longevity. Games prices haven't gone up for several generations now, but development costs certainly have. Disregarding companies that pour probably far too much money into marketing, I wonder how easy it is for a game to turn a profit these days, and if DLC and microtransactions do actually have some sort of affect on that.

Like, we have that confirmation form EA that losing lootboxes didn't hurt Battlefront 2's profits, but at the same time, I look at the actual state of game development and costs, and the defense that other veins of profit related to a game can help, and it makes me wonder. Telltale Games just closed its doors, and they were one of the good ones, how long were they operating at a loss? The employees were working unpaid overtime, and didn't get their severances - so I wonder, in this generation of game development, do microtransactions actually save certain games? EA's admittance would have us believe that it doesn't matter, but EA is also a massive company with a lot of revenue flowing in from a lot of different games. I think their sports division alone is what gives the opportunity to buy out and use up smaller studios.

Especially, I think about the fact that they have these extra ways of making a profit, that often do not affect the game negatively, so not only is it extra money in the bank from people who willingly decide they want to make use of it, there's no coercion that sullies the average game experience. If these can help keep the lights on in a studio I love, and they won't negatively affect me and others if I don't want to make use of them, it's hard to see any legitimate harm in their inclusion. There's a massive emphasis on it having no affect on the average gameplay, though. Massive, because that's the tipping point.

There were more examples they were just main ones I had seen in last few months & Witcher 3 wasn’t an exclusive.

I'm not jiving with everything this new guy is saying, but you have to admit that the "make a good game and it'll be a success" is pretty shaky, right? History is unfortunately littered with the corpses of some damn good games that fell into obscurity, either because they couldn't find their market or...whatever else that randomly befalls them. It's still baffling to me that Clover Studios games petered out despite the massive pedigree they had, having been some of Capcom's best. Okami has been ported to hell and back for its chance in the sun, and people still swear by Godhand, but they never really get the recognition they deserve.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Like I said, DMC4SE is not valid example to begin with and they onlc increased because it would make grind for additional characters impossible.

But here I'm told that the grind for red orbs is part of the Devil May Cry experience~ Also, how would it have been impossible? Every character shared the same orb and soul count to begin with, even before an increase. Going through all of the Nero/Dante campaign got you nearly everything you needed for Vergil and Lady/Trish.

Interestingly, this is sort of the exact thing that the microtransaction does - you're getting red orbs to buy stuff without having played so much of the game. DMC4, at base, before the microtransaction, already gave you a huge boost to Dante for having played most of the game as Nero. They could have DMC2'd it and made Dante have to start up from zero, but they didn't, and then in DMC4se we got to carry over orb counts again. So much for the principle that it ruins the game in that regard >_>

Wrong. It literally added to ingame menu. Please do tell me how it's only aftersought.

Well no, not an afterthought, but it's super easy to put a button in your game for a microtransaction and then never think about it again.

Not debatable. Borderlands, Doom, Dark Souls all could add it, yet they didn't and only profite about it.
yet to find at least one positive example. It made grind bs in injustice, shadow of war, Battlefield 2 and tons of other games.

These roll into one, conveniently - Dragon's Dogma had the exact same "buy some currency" microtransactions with zero ill-effect on the game. DMC4se also had them, to no ill-effect. Games can have them if they aren't predatory, that's the point. They're terrible when they're predatory.

Like I said, DMC4 isn't valid to begin with.

You can't just ignore it because it doesn't jive with your argument, but okay, Dragon's Dogma is our new example. The microtransaction is not predatory in any way, it's entirely up to the player if they want to drop some money for some added convenience. When the microtransaction is implemented in predatory fashion, it is no longer their choice, because they are being coerced.

Don't be drama queen. It has nothing to do with each other. But they made dumb choice, that will impact their sales, and people pointing it out.

Okay, no drama queening, but I still didn't say anything about "fanbase should stfu and gobble everything up," as you said. Ironically, I explicitly said the opposite, that people should be mindful of each individual situation and push back accordingly, based on when something is actually negatively impacting the game. Quite the far cry from telling people to just shut up and like it.

So far, there is no negative impact, only the slim possibility that there could be, predicated solely on the fact that some other companies did it, and thinking they're all evil, money-grubbing leeches. Get upset when there is a concrete thing to be upset about. You don't even have to buy the game, or even wait until release, review copies will go out, and some dude in Saudi Arabia will get it like three weeks early and be able to show whether orb rates and prices are jacked.

 

[Innsmouth]

Well no, not an afterthought, but it's super easy to put a button in your game for a microtransaction and then never think about it again.

Yes and no, if you add it to menu, it basically would be pointles if you don't encourage it in one way or another.

These roll into one, conveniently - Dragon's Dogma had the exact same "buy some currency" microtransactions with zero ill-effect on the game. DMC4se also had them, to no ill-effect. Games can have them if they aren't predatory, that's the point. They're terrible when they're predatory.

Dragon's dogma also added pretty heavy grind for DLC tbh, so I dunno if it as that good example as you say.

Okay, no drama queening, but I still didn't say anything about "fanbase should stfu and gobble everything up," as you said.

I never said you did It wasn't directed at you.

So far, there is no negative impact, only the slim possibility that there could be, predicated solely on the fact that some other companies did it, and thinking they're all evil, money-grubbing leeches. Get upset when there is a concrete thing to be upset about. You don't even have to buy the game, or even wait until release, review copies will go out, and some dude in Saudi Arabia will get it like three weeks early and be able to show whether orb rates and prices are jacked.

I think YongYea made very good point. Yes, it would be ok, maybe, but the whole "pay to revive" is literally mobile game tactics. Which in my opinion is going to far. Basically as long as you grab as your wallet, you have infinite continues which in my opinion doesn't belong to the game like DMC.

 

[gmc]

yongyea was way more professional about this than angry joe and jim sterling, shameful he doesnt have as many subscribers

 

[devil_inside123]

That's not the point. Now it's just testing the waters, if there is no outcry eventually the next games will start getting designed to incentivize payments. You guys are taking this waay too lightly.

No not really. No one will use them, so even if there is no outcry they'll see they didn't make anything from the micro transactions and realize they don't work. I don't like it one bit and while it is good to show at least s bit if distaste for them that Capcom will see then were good. But there's no need to get torches and pitchforks, maybe just signs and wristbands. And as said before, as long as the orb rate and economy isn't built around it then I'll be fine. Kinda bummed yellow orbs are gone though, it's gonna make reviving way too easy now

Pretty much this.

I kept an eye out before all this on how many red orbs you could earn playing the game and not only are they not rare they are abundant. In DMC4 SE it was ridiculously easy to farm for to the point that the mic-tras were trivial.

I think this whole thing has been blown so out of proportion it's become stupid now. Add to this that in previous games, namely 1 and 3, it was much harder to earn capital and buy things because they kept becoming more and more expensive, much harder than it looks like it's happening in 5 and this whole thing rings of overreaction. Moves and items apparently cost anywhere from 5000 to 20000 orbs and according to the article you can earn around 15000 from just the demo area. I'm not seeing the need for the concern this has sprout. If this has anything like Battlefront I'd say something but as it stands all of this is unwarranted.

I'm also getting tired of the disclaimer 'don't defend this, you can't, it's just bad' and every other BS excuse as to why this isn't a conversation it's a statement. Angry Joe started his video like that. I don't want to read people defending this in the comments. So agree or get out? Not to mention the Jim Sterling video which was just a nagging compilation of insults and mochery. I specially find it BS because I know that if or when the time comes and all of their p***ing and moaning and insults were for nothing because the games play just as well without having to pay for upgrades, such as in DMC4SE, they won't be apologizing for their condizending and downright vicious videos, specially Sterling's, nor will they ever admit fault or overreaction and that's why I don't put stock on these things anymore.

The way the reviving works sounds exactly as though your just buying and using a green orb on the spot, different levels of health when reviving (XL,L,M,S) and increasing price like in 3 and 4

Actually it wasn'T confirmed and can't be confirmed until we get final product. Just like With Shadow of War, we don't know, how they tweaked gameplay and as such, it's completely possible that they tweaked it in the way it makes getting skill much harder, either reducing amount of orbs and / or increasing prices to the point, where you have to grind hard to get final move set.

This might be off topic but it reminds me of when I played a demo disc for DMC1 and all the skills were absurdly expensive but we're alot cheaper in the actual game

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Yes and no, if you add it to menu, it basically would be pointles if you don't encourage it in one way or another.

Except for all the times it has been implemented to no detriment.

Dragon's dogma also added pretty heavy grind for DLC tbh, so I dunno if it as that good example as you say.

Keep movin' that goalpost~ Bitterblack Isle was meant to be tackled on like your third replay, it's only grindy if you throw yourself into it far too early without properly leveling and gearing from the ur-dragon.

I never said you did It wasn't directed at you.

Then why bring it up while addressing me :/

Anyway...

=============================​

I wanna lay something out that I think needs straightening.

Microtransactions are not inherently bad. They are only bad when they are implemented poorly, or in a way that is predatory and forces you to utilize it. That's why we have words, "bad" means something, but when they are implemented and there is no detrimental effect, there is nothing bad about it, it's just there. It's an innocuous element that goes ignored and unnoticed.

"Player choice" is not inherently bad. It unfortunately gets paraded around by some pretty duplicitous folks, who did some pretty shady crap with their games. However, the core concept of allowing a player to make an extra purchase for something that can only make their playtime more enjoyable, while another player doesn't have to do so to find their own enjoyment, is not bad. When a game makes use of a predatory microtransaction, it is no longer player choice, it's coercion.

Microtransactions aren't bad. Predatory microtransactions are bad.
"Player choice" isn't bad. Player coercion that masquerades itself as choice is bad.

This is what I'm talking about with the whole, like, choosing your battles, and thinking critically about each individual instance. A business still has to make money off of its products, but what matters is how much profit they try to wring out of the consumer for little commensurate return.

In this instance, I see no evidence of a predatory microtransaction, and Itsuno and Walker have assured us that what is being implemented will not be predatory, nor coerce the player. So far, there is literally no reason not to trust their word on this, aside from what other developers who are not them, have said/done.

 

[Innsmouth]

In this instance, I see no evidence of a predatory microtransaction, and Itsuno and Walker have assured us that what is being implemented will not be predatory, nor coerce the player. So far, there is literally no reason not to trust their word on this, aside from what other developers who are not them, have said/done.

Like I said point where it seems to go in predatory category is when you can almost buy your way to the victory. I think it goes against purpose of the game and shoudn't be ingame. If it was only limited to moves, I probably would have closed my eyes on it, but since it now applies to retry mechanic, it is wrong in my opinion

 

[Stylish Nero]

Find it funny how Red Dead Redemption 2. A far bigger game is confirmed to have more microsanctions due to the success of GTA Online but barely a peep out of these sheeps.

https://gamerant.com/red-dead-redemption-2-more-microtransactions-gta-5/

https://www.gamesradar.com/red-dead-redemption-2-microtransactions/

 

[gmc]

Find it funny how Red Dead Redemption 2. A far bigger game is confirmed to have more microsanctions due to the success of GTA Online but barely a peep out of these sheeps.

https://gamerant.com/red-dead-redemption-2-more-microtransactions-gta-5/

https://www.gamesradar.com/red-dead-redemption-2-microtransactions/

yongyea did a video about it being against it

 

[Dark Drakan]

Find it funny how Red Dead Redemption 2. A far bigger game is confirmed to have more microsanctions due to the success of GTA Online but barely a peep out of these sheeps.

https://gamerant.com/red-dead-redemption-2-more-microtransactions-gta-5/

https://www.gamesradar.com/red-dead-redemption-2-microtransactions/

Personally I DEFINITELY don't agree with them in games like GTA and Red Dead Redemption 2 or Halo 5 (as mentioned in link below), games that tend to break sales records (GTA) and are pretty much guaranteed sales and commercial successes (GTA V had sold nearly 100 million copies as of August).

I get that they are also some of the most expensive games ever created but the sales have more than covered that & I would take decent sized paid for single player DLC over them (Undead Nightmare for RDR for example). It was Take Two that pushed them into the game and the 'whales' ate them up and spent millions in game which sealed the fate of them in RDR2 as Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick said, GTA Online is "the gift that keeps on giving".

Like, we have that confirmation form EA that losing lootboxes didn't hurt Battlefront 2's profits, but at the same time, I look at the actual state of game development and costs, and the defense that other veins of profit related to a game can help, and it makes me wonder. Telltale Games just closed its doors, and they were one of the good ones, how long were they operating at a loss? The employees were working unpaid overtime, and didn't get their severances - so I wonder, in this generation of game development, do microtransactions actually save certain games? EA's admittance would have us believe that it doesn't matter, but EA is also a massive company with a lot of revenue flowing in from a lot of different games. I think their sports division alone is what gives the opportunity to buy out and use up smaller studios.

It was a licensed Star Wars game made by the Battlefield studio, it was like GTA (a guaranteed sales success before it even launched). It didnt need the lootboxes to turn a profit and they admitted that, they just wanted to milk fans and the fans just werent having it. They locked characters behind paywalls and 40 hour grinds to unlock a single character. This grind was also changed many times during Beta and then after release too so its very easy to alter is. They purposely made it frustrating in order to push you to spend money and this was the model I do not want creeping into games.

Telltale used the episodic method to release their games and the sporadic timing between episode releases as well as their reluctance to update their awful engine or mix things up in their games helped contribute to their failure. I really enjoyed their games (hence the avatar) and im really sad about their closure but many decisions behind the scenes contributed to that downfall. They took on far too many projects and gave the gamers fatigue with their ever growing catalogue of releases that ALL followed the exact same formula with a different skin. Quantity over quality was their biggest problem and adding microtransactions to their games wouldnt have helped them in my opinion & would have killed them FAR sooner.

If these can help keep the lights on in a studio I love, and they won't negatively affect me and others if I don't want to make use of them, it's hard to see any legitimate harm in their inclusion. There's a massive emphasis on it having no affect on the average gameplay, though. Massive, because that's the tipping point.

As I said before if its a small indie studio who are relying on this money as their overall business model (releasing F2P games etc) then fair enough have them in. However if you are releasing that product for full price then so long as they dont have a large affect on the average gameplay then again fine I dont mind so much.

As you said, that is the tipping point for most people and the route we do not want games going down and thats the whole point. At the moment we have Capcoms word that this is the case for DMC V and we wont notice them, but thats all we have currently and we have heard that before so just exercising caution not chastising them.

I'm not jiving with everything this new guy is saying, but you have to admit that the "make a good game and it'll be a success" is pretty shaky, right? History is unfortunately littered with the corpses of some damn good games that fell into obscurity, either because they couldn't find their market or...whatever else that randomly befalls them. It's still baffling to me that Clover Studios games petered out despite the massive pedigree they had, having been some of Capcom's best. Okami has been ported to hell and back for its chance in the sun, and people still swear by Godhand, but they never really get the recognition they deserve.

It can be shaky yes but normally when there are other factors at play and things going on behind the scenes. Some games are niche and no changing that, they wont appeal to a wide enough audience to have mass appeal but for the most part great games tend to sell well on their own merits. Its an unpredictable business and many of my favourite studios in my 27 years of gaming have unfortunately closed their doors but many factors have been at play in their failure and not always as cut and dry as they didnt make enough profit.

 

[dg1995]

Don't know why no one considers this that Devil May Cry's genre is hack'n slash game, the only other upcoming HnS game is Bayonetta 3(Which is going to be exclusive for Nintendo switch) other HnS franchises are dead. Ninja Gaiden is dead. other ones have followed the Dark Souls way(God Of War, Darksiders)

Hack'n slash is a niche genre and I'm not sure if DMC 5 becomes successful by just making a masterpiece game.(Similar to Grim Fandango, which despite being a masterpiece Point'n click game was a huge failure for Lucasarts that even foorced them to cancel a Point'n Click Star Wars game)

Another factor that makes games development prices go up is development time.(Which no youtuber discusses about that)
GTA vice city had 1 year development time.
GTA San Andreas had 2 years.
GTA IV had 4.
GTA V had 5.

Even if your game is not in the same genre as GTA it's development time has also gone up.For example DMC games:

Devil May Cry 3 which according to the majority is the best DMC game had about 2 years development time.

DMC 4 had 3 years development time and yet many consider it as a half of a game and unfinished.(Due to backtracking) and even though that it was the most successful DMC game, Capcom wasn't satisfied with the sales and decided to reboot the franchise.

DmC had 4-5 years I think.(Which was maybe due to this that developers weren't that skilled for making a deep combat mechanics)

And now it looks like that DMC 5 has maybe about 4 year development time when it releases.(if they've began development from the beginning of 2015)

I also don't know why none of you trust the game director that gave you DMC 3 and 4. when it was announced that MGS V Phantom Pain is going to have MTs, Hideo Kojima promised that they won't effect the game in a negative way and all the people and gaming media accepted that.

Imo MTs won't effect this game in a negative way.

 

[Goldsickle]

It was easy to ignore in DMC4:SE because of LDK mode.
Just a few missions (I think the enemies are on Devil Hunter difficulty) and you have more than enough Proud Souls or Red Orbs for all the upgrades.

I guess I can just go nice and slow all over again like in previous DMC games.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

It was a licensed Star Wars game made by the Battlefield studio, it was like GTA (a guaranteed sales success before it even launched). It didnt need the lootboxes to turn a profit and they admitted that, they just wanted to milk fans and the fans just werent having it. They locked characters behind paywalls and 40 hour grinds to unlock a single character. This grind was also changed many times during Beta and then after release too so its very easy to alter is. They purposely made it frustrating in order to push you to spend money and this was the model I do not want creeping into games.

This sorta bumps up with my point, where Battlefront 2 is more an outlier than a standard for how much impact microtransactions can have on a game. Perhaps GTAV is a better example, given that shark cards did so well for Rockstar, but that game was a mess of absurd amounts of marketing as well. Has anyone ever actually tried to figure out that profit impact, even? I suppose devs aren't really that forthcoming with such information...

As you said, that is the tipping point for most people and the route we do not want games going down and thats the whole point. At the moment we have Capcoms word that this is the case for DMC V and we wont notice them, but thats all we have currently and we have heard that before so just exercising caution not chastising them.

And that's what gets me in the end, I can understand trepidation, but Capcom is not WB, or EA. A precedent doesn't mean everyone gets painted with a broad stroke, each individual case still matters for consideration. We have no reason not to trust Itsuno and Walker, they have been very upfront and candid when they can be about this project, probably because they already feel they need to win over a bunch of people who got their undies in a wad over DmC.

But, as I mentioned about about "predatory microtransactions" and coercion, there's a stark difference in implementation, and I think it's dumb to both complain about microtransactions in general and boycotting on that principle, and then like...people lamenting that we haven't gotten a new DMC game in years. Look at the individual case, guys! I hate microtransactions too, but I'm not gonna let it ruin my experience, my enjoyment, my joy if there's nothing to worry about. If it isn't predatory, it's a win-win situation: I get a normal game, they get a profit, we all go home happy.

 

[Dark Drakan]

This sorta bumps up with my point, where Battlefront 2 is more an outlier than a standard for how much impact microtransactions can have on a game. Perhaps GTAV is a better example, given that shark cards did so well for Rockstar, but that game was a mess of absurd amounts of marketing as well. Has anyone ever actually tried to figure out that profit impact, even? I suppose devs aren't really that forthcoming with such information...

I watched Angry Joe interview some of the developers from Battlefront II where they actually claimed that the lootboxes/microtransactions in Battlefront II could go unnoticed and wouldnt effect the balance of the game. I actually believed them for a short while too as it seemed genuine but didnt trust EA's motives. I had the game bought for me as a Christmas present but then didnt even bother to open it after I read all about the controversy and sold it after seeing what actually happened to it and the PR rubbish they had spouted all turned out to be lies. I know they removed them and rebalanced everything eventually but by that point I had lost all faith in them and would take a miracle of a turnaround for me to consider buying Battlefront III now and im a big fan of Battlefield/old school Battlefront and Star Wars too.

Rockstar have made an obscene amount of money from sales and those shark cards but they really messed with the balance of the online too and many say that they are also the cause of them concentrating more on the online portion than releasing any single player DLC. I played the online for a little bit but found it to be essentially pay to win and just didnt have the time to grind to get to that same level some had paid extra early to reach so I stopped playing. Though it has gotten better over time with countless updates I must admit.

Most of my gaming decisions these days are based purely on time as I dont have much of it with 2 small children. If a game is made like Battlefront 2 and purposely made into a huge grind then its a no go for me. I dont have the time to grind games designed like that or the disposable income to shortcut it either. When the choices are grind for 40 hours to unlock 1 character or spend real money to do it (multiple times) I choose neither and would rather not play at all. How about be more generous with in game currency and give us more in game challenges to unlock things at a normal rate?

One might say No Mans Sky is a grind but it has no microtransactions etc of any kind so I dont mind as much as time and effort is rewarded and no paying for shortcuts. They also had a well documented PR disaster at launch full of lies but managed to turn it around with good faith and continuing to work on the game without microtransactions/paid DLC. Its the perfect candidate for the microtransaction model too with it being from a tiny indie studio and with its genre/style and amount of customisation and building potential, multiplayer and loot based systems. However im sure they would have been hung, drawn and quartered if they had gone that route in this current climate.

And that's what gets me in the end, I can understand trepidation, but Capcom is not WB, or EA. A precedent doesn't mean everyone gets painted with a broad stroke, each individual case still matters for consideration. We have no reason not to trust Itsuno and Walker, they have been very upfront and candid when they can be about this project, probably because they already feel they need to win over a bunch of people who got their undies in a wad over DmC.

But, as I mentioned about about "predatory microtransactions" and coercion, there's a stark difference in implementation, and I think it's dumb to both complain about microtransactions in general and boycotting on that principle, and then like...people lamenting that we haven't gotten a new DMC game in years. Look at the individual case, guys! I hate microtransactions too, but I'm not gonna let it ruin my experience, my enjoyment, my joy if there's nothing to worry about. If it isn't predatory, it's a win-win situation: I get a normal game, they get a profit, we all go home happy.

I think most people are just tired of hearing the same recycled PR speak & buzzwords from all the companies implementing them that its getting harder to pick out those who are being genuine. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me and all that. Until it releases we wont know how genuine they are actually being & how much is PR speak and maybe those that are boycotting it because of the microtransactions will decide to purchase after all should they be as unintrusive as they are saying. Im not saying that DMC V will have a huge problem with microtransactions or that they are evil or anything like that but these huge well documented incidents listed in this thread have made me cautious of them. No harm in being cautious and in this day and age I would always advise people against preordering games anyway.

 

[Foxtrot94]

Half of the blame is to put on us gamers by the way. It's easy to lunge at the publishers for scummy practices like microtransactions but the truth is that they keep putting them in their games cause people use them. And yet I've seen almost no one addressing the player base side of responsibilities regarding this issue.