reviewers shitting on games because of micro transactions ruins their integrity

[Kashimi]

I'm fine with him deleting his review to update to a new review. It's just a way of keeping his channel tidy and ensuring that his viewers in the future aren't missing the proper content he chooses to release. I look at it like this, maybe someone looks up call of duty reviews and since that video is older, it has more views which makes it more popular and so it appears first on the list of search results whereas the updated video may not even appear until a few pages in based on how many views it actually got. His decision to remove the video prevents people from missing the updated video.

Also, at the end of the day you just have to consider the fact that it's his channel and he isn't obligated to maintain any curation of videos.

[Saskia]

Adding microtransactions into games after release is not done just to avoid bad reviews. It's also done so they can build up a large player base first and get all sorts of statistics and player metrics which they can use to fine tune the microtransactions to be as manipulative as possible.

[ryvrdrgn14]

More importantly, reviewers who find MTX really bad should always make their reviews with the assumption that games that release without or with minimal MTX have the potential and a probability of receiving an MTX shop or more obtrusive MTX in the future, even months down the line. This is even being done for remastered games. This has already been a trend of the publishers and should be considered for any review and just warn all the viewers that things can and will probably change down the line.

Is the game worth $60 ($40/30/25/20/etc) right now as it is? The reviewer can say yes, with the caveat that you should prepare yourself for eventual MTX later. Tell the viewer if they dislike MTX they can wait 3-6 months before purchasing the game.

[vippy]

I think of that as a very principled approach. The reviewer has his criteria - microtransactions are a deal breaker. The game introduced microtransactions, he withdraws his support for it, sending a clear message to publishers and fellow players alike that this sort of thing is not okay in a full price game. You're grasping at straws here.

[PriestTroit]

Wrong.

He's reviewed previous games which included micro transactions, so it's false that it's a deal breaker for him in the past.

[Animusisters]

It's the only logical step to update your review if a very major change has been made to a game. Adding microtransactions after the big review wave is out is just a major change and a very decptive tactic.

[Garrett]

I don't understand taking down a review entirely if one thing changes in a game that makes it much worse. I just made a "not recommended" Steam review for Far Cry 5 that starts with the few positives and then lists the negatives that broke the camel's back. If I made a positive Black Ops 4 review and later it turned out that predatory microtransactions have ruined the game for me, I'd augment the review, not remove it entirely. The positive aspects of the game still stand, and it's up to the reader of the review to make a judgement based on the description of the game. For example my "objective review format" that simply lists aspects of a game might reveal nothing that someone finds objectionable, and the positives listed might be enough for the reader to like it. So, if there's a glowing review for Black Ops 4 that praises the hell out of the gameplay, but also includes a description of the horrible microtransactions, then still someone might not have a problem with the latter and would be impressed by the former. On the flipside I have no problem with the cosmetic microtransactions of Ghost Recon Wildlands, but someone might oppose the mere concept of microtransactions on principle, and just the mention of that would make the product irredeemable to them. Just include an addendum, don't delete your review.

[Aidy]

Just include an addendum, don't delete your review.

You can't add to existing youtube videos.

[Aidy]

He would need to delete the original to do that.

[PriestTroit]

I've seen videos before which have a link right at the beginning informing the viewer that that particular video is an outdated version and links to the updated one once clicked. It's a thing.

[Aidy]

Yes, you can do that (add overlays), but the original version remains and the guy in question obviously thought he'd rather not take the risk. It was just a stunt anyway, if he really wanted to simply amend his review he would have done what you suggested, updated the title etc.

[GeminiSprk]

The way I see it is if a company is so desperate to milk as much of the game as possible that they'd straight up rip something out that was obviously meant to be part of the original product and charge you extra to get it back, then maybe they're the problem.

[Zeno]

How many times should someone be expected to update their review of a game then?

I think that a company adding scummy microtransactions after you have already reviewed the game at launch, is a perfectly legitimate reason to pull your positive review of a game.
Reviewers have no obligation to the developers/publishers of games, they only have an obligation to the consumer that they are potentially influencing.
If a game company preys on those that buy their game, then the reviewer who leaves a positive review of that game could potentially feel complicit in abusing the trust of their audience. It is up to the reviewer how they choose to handle their own content.
I for one would be much more open to trusting someone that is willing sacrifice their own financial gain, to uphold their moral convictions.

[PriestTroit]

"scummy microtransactions"
You mean to say literally any micro transactions. Just admit it.

"If an game company preys on those that buy their game..."
If you think micro transactions are predatory, when it's literally just a customer purchasing a good, then how is a pizzeria charging for toppings any different?

[Zeno]

Yeah, I do mean any microtransactions on a game that you have already paid for, but especially those with subscriptions and/or Season Pass/Expansions.

Microtransactions are predatory, because they are things that are taken out of or held from a product to be sold separately but still require that product in order to use them. A pizzaria charging for toppings has a list of all products they offer before you order your pizza, they don't just call you halfway through eating your pizza and say "Hey, you enjoying your pizza? You know what would make it even better? Bacon." Pizza is sold as a base product that you add which toppings you want to it before you order it, it isn't sent out to you as cheese, then toppings offered to you at undisclosed intervals.

[PriestTroit]

You must have a vastly different definition of what predatory means than the standard one I have.

[Spect3r]

I dont read or watch reviews. At most i watch a gameplay trailer for a game i am not sure i want to play or not, but thats about it and i never played a game where micro transactions bothered me.
Anyway. i agree with you. If the implementation of micro transactions doesnt change the game itself then it should not affect the already made review of the game, nor should a review be deleted because of this.

Also, i am still trying to understand why micro transactions make people so mad. Dont like them? Just dont buy them, or in case you get so upset, just dont fucking play the fucking game, is really not that difficult. .

[monnef]

Also, i am still trying to understand why micro transactions make people so mad.

It was already mentioned several times - mtxs usually damage game play (grinding) and restrict access to content players paid for in initial price (objectively it should be "players perceive they paid for it", but realistically speaking, I am pretty sure all that work has already been done, so the content should have been included in a base game and if costs were too high, the price of a game should have been higher).

Dont like them? Just dont buy them, or in case you get so upset, just dont fucking play the fucking game, is really not that difficult. .

Easier said than done when developers (probably forced by publishers) are adding mtxs to already released games. If you stop playing a game you already paid for, you aren't getting money back, so you unintentionally supporting such scummy practices.

I, personally, am fine with DLCs, so mtxs with good ratio of content and gameplay per money spent. I don't buy anything in cash shops and try to avoid any game which has microtransactions. And the red reticle for 1$? That is as scummy as it can get. It should cost not more than a few cents...

[PriestTroit]

And the red reticle for 1$? That is as scummy as it can get. It should cost not more than a few cents...

It's not really that bad in comparison to Oblivion's Horse Armor Pack which was sold for $2.50, and you had to pay 500 gold in-game to unlock each one after the first! :O

[Aidy]

Easier said than done when developers (probably forced by publishers) are adding mtxs to already released games.

What games have done that?

[Aidy]

One game? One game added a reticle you could buy for $1 prompted you to say

Easier said than done when developers (probably forced by publishers) are adding mtxs to already released games. If you stop playing a game you already paid for, you aren't getting money back, so you unintentionally supporting such scummy practices.

Over one game in thousands implementing a $1 mtx? Don't you think you're overreacting a little? You're talking like this is a widespread practice ruining the industry.

[monnef]

Adding overprized items to existing cash store is common. For example that santa suit or "emotes" (just few small images) for Fallout 76, also added at later date after release. I don't think I am overreacting, the trend is clear - we are getting similar horrible value/price as free mobile games. Sure, with free mobile games you can expect this money from overprized items are similar to paying later for the game you already played some time. But the important difference in case of PC/consoles is, that we already paid for the game once and now they want players to pay again and again.

[Aidy]

Omg!!! They added optional santa suits to fallout at christmas!!! They're ruining games!!!!

[RepentantSky]

I'm sorry, OP, but your complaints to me basically come off as "how dare someone change their opinion when a game has changed the way it presents it's content" which is perfectly fine to do. Even if he still thinks the game is good, not liking microtransactions and not promoting the purchase of the game because they exist, is perfectly fine to do. People are allowed to react unfavorably to something they don't like, and you seem mad at this guy for doing that which is unreasonable.

[PriestTroit]

Eh, to each their own I suppose. I just think it's dishonest to remove a positive review as a form of protest, for pretty much any reason. For example, say there was a really good game that had a developer insert a bunch of political nonsense into it later on. If it's still a good game, then in my eyes it shows a lack of integrity to then say people shouldn't buy it.

The inverse is also true. If you skipped reviewing a game because you weren't interested or gave it a low score instead, it would then be dishonest to suddenly give it a glowing review because you agree with the included political angle.

[RepentantSky]

I completely disagree. Black Ops 4 in particular launched with no microtransactions seemingly to promote better review scores and then silently added them in to try and keep the cash flow going despite how it might affect the overall opinion of the game. There's not any exact proof of this, but considering who owns Black Ops, and that they put such stock into microtransactions, that they charged for maps for a remake, at a higher price than they were originally no less for Modern Warfare, kind of makes the point. EA is deceptive as can be, and without proof to show that getting better reviews to improve sales was not their intent, it's practically impossible to disprove the opinion that they once again manipulated people for money. If a company isn't going to show all the fans of gaming integrity, which this move suggests they won't, than they are not required to receive what you see as integrity in return and again, I disagree with that showing a lack of integrity in the first place.

Also, to your second statement, if a bunch of politics were added into a game to show the view of whoever created it, it would likely fundamentally change the game and it's message, which for people who like story, could change their opinion of whether or not the game is good, even they liked it originally. Your example is poor, and simply put, people are allowed to change their opinion and be open about why if the fundamentals of a game change, regardless of how they change. You make it seem like people can't change their mind if the content changes, so no, the inverse is not true, and I'll say it again, it's unreasonable of you to try and tell anyone they lack integrity because of their changed opinion. The only example I can think of that actually makes sense, is if someone reviewed a game favorably or unfavorably, then had a good or bad day with the game, and changed their opinion because of that, because then it seems like they only enjoy a game because they winning in it instead of losing. Changing your opinion in this instance though, makes perfect sense.

[Spect3r]

It was already mentioned several times - mtxs usually damage game play (grinding) and restrict access to content players paid for in initial price (objectively it should be "players perceive they paid for it", but realistically speaking, I am pretty sure all that work has already been done, so the content should have been included in a base game and if costs were too high, the price of a game should have been higher).

I never played a game where i felt micro transactions screwed my gameplay.
I see a lot of people complaining of the griding in AC Odyssey. But i finished the game, all the cultists, atlantida, etc and not once i felt like i had to overgrind or anything like that, never felt like i needed to buy anything or that if i had bought would largely reduce my gametime.
So, i really think people overreact.

Easier said than done when developers (probably forced by publishers) are adding mtxs to already released games. If you stop playing a game you already paid for, you aren't getting money back, so you unintentionally supporting such scummy practices.

I, personally, am fine with DLCs, so mtxs with good ratio of content and gameplay per money spent. I don't buy anything in cash shops and try to avoid any game which has microtransactions. And the red reticle for 1$? That is as scummy as it can get. It should cost not more than a few cents...

Anyone that is really against it and feels it really bothers them would stop playing immediately, based on principles.
I have quit projects where I lost money because of quiting but since was against my principles i just give it up.
What i do think is that "talk is cheap", so people complain but they dont walk the talk.