reviewers shitting on games because of micro transactions ruins their integrity

[monnef]

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.

I don't know about AC Odyssey (did play previous one and it felt sometimes grindy, but nothing too bad), but Middle-earth: Shadow of War was so terrible at the end that I gave up. And it was clear that this was because lootboxes, because when they removed them they also changed the game in a way it was no longer grindfest (didn't play after that change, just read articles).

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.

Sure, I agree. I am just saying that effects of your actions (assuming you won't buy anything from that publisher/studio again) may be visible after several years, if at all. It is debatable, but it actually may be more harmful for them if you keep playing on their servers and downloading updates (costing them money), but never buying anything from them again. Honestly, I think giving ratings, writing reviews and talking about the issues (forums, social networks) will be more effective in getting the message through. That is one of main reasons why I like Steam and why I dislike Epic Games Store (no user ratings, no user reviews, not even forums).

[Spect3r]

I don't know about AC Odyssey (did play previous one and it felt sometimes grindy, but nothing too bad), but Middle-earth: Shadow of War was so terrible at the end that I gave up. And it was clear that this was because lootboxes, because when they removed them they also changed the game in a way it was no longer grindfest (didn't play after that change, just read articles).

Did they changed because people complained or did they changed because of the "gambling/lootboxes" issue in Belgium, etc?

Sure, I agree. I am just saying that effects of your actions (assuming you won't buy anything from that publisher/studio again) may be visible after several years, if at all. It is debatable, but it actually may be more harmful for them if you keep playing on their servers and downloading updates (costing them money), but never buying anything from them again. Honestly, I think giving ratings, writing reviews and talking about the issues (forums, social networks) will be more effective in getting the message through. That is one of main reasons why I like Steam and why I dislike Epic Games Store (no user ratings, no user reviews, not even forums).

As long as companies make lots of money from lootboxes they dont care people complain. You may be a vocal minority, but a minority non the less.
The only reason Overwatch, etc, took out the lootboxes was because of Government interference,

[fenrif]

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.

How do you vote with your wallet when they allready have your money and add in microtransactions a month after launch?

[Spect3r]

How do you vote with your wallet when they allready have your money and add in microtransactions a month after launch?

I just stop playing the game.
If anything does something that i dont agree with i just quit.
I drop out of a project where i had thousands of € invested because i didnt agree with the path they were taking, so stop playing a 60€ game is not hard at all.

I dont care if affects the publisher or not, is not for their principles is for my principles.

Plus, like i said above, companies do not care about a small minority, even if vocal.
Unless you get the MSM on your side, they will not care about you not liking microtransactions.

[monnef]

Did they changed because people complained or did they changed because of the "gambling/lootboxes" issue in Belgium, etc?

They say it was because of the backlash:

While purchasing Orcs in the Market is more immediate and provides additional player options, we have come to realize that providing this choice risked undermining the heart of our game, the Nemesis System. It allows you to miss out on the awesome player stories you would have otherwise created, and it compromises those same stories even if you don’t buy anything. Simply being aware that they are available for purchase reduces the immersion in the world and takes away from the challenge of building your personal army and your fortresses. In order to fully restore the core promise of the Nemesis System, we’ll be permanently removing Gold, War Chests and the Market from Shadow of War.

But it happened 6 months after release, so they probably thought they already milked biggest whales and tried to win back some lost fans.

As long as companies make lots of money from lootboxes they dont care people complain. You may be a vocal minority, but a minority non the less.
The only reason Overwatch, etc, took out the lootboxes was because of Government interference,

I should note that lootboxes in OW are purely cosmetic and everything can be obtained by playing the game, while in Middle-Earth: Shadow of War you had clear advantages (IIRC there was PvP and that was essentially pay to win, never played that). Crippling progress, requiring player paying for normal speed of progression, for how the game was meant to be played, in a single player is in my view unacceptable in a game you already paid full price.

[Spect3r]

They say it was because of the backlash:



But it happened 6 months after release, so they probably thought they already milked biggest whales and tried to win back some lost fans.

Most likely.

I should note that lootboxes in OW are purely cosmetic and everything can be obtained by playing the game, while in Middle-Earth: Shadow of War you had clear advantages (IIRC there was PvP and that was essentially pay to win, never played that). Crippling progress, requiring player paying for normal speed of progression, for how the game was meant to be played, in a single player is in my view unacceptable in a game you already paid full price.

[/quote]

I agree that is unacceptable, and i dont wanna pass the impression im in favor of microtransactions, i just think people either shut up or put up, thats all

[Ryan]

I agree.

Microtransactions are here to stay. People really need to get the hell over it already, and if they are in the position of power to review a game - then they need to learn this thing called 'objectivity'. You can review something objectively -- and for some reason every damn time I say that people try and argue a review can only be subjective. SMH. You can not like how something is being done (subjective) but understand why it's being done (objective). You can not like these transactions being in a game (subjective) but be able to appreciate whether or not those transactions impact the game in a real, tangible way like pay-to-win (objective).

People need to stand by their word.