reviewers shitting on games because of micro transactions ruins their integrity

[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.

[SnarkyJay]

I agree that I would be interested to see what his score of the game with microtransactions would have been. Since, as you say, the red dot sight doesn't give an advantage to the player, then I would classify it as a cosmetic change. I have no problems with cosmetic microtransactions in games. They are there for those who want it, and can be ignored by everyone else. If you could buy a new gun that was in some way better than the free ones, I would probably feel differently.

[Aidy]

He would need to delete the original to do that.

[Garrett]

Reuploading is a thing.

[Aidy]

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

You can't add to existing youtube videos.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[MadMummy76]

I'd rather they didn't try milking a game's player base for years. You say 4th year? They should be getting close to releasing a completely new game instead of wasting resources on cosmetic items to sell in-game. That's the equivalent of sitting on your laurels for 4 years. No, you release a game, make 2-3 or if very successful maybe 5 actual content expansions to the game that are not just cosmetic items in 16-18 months and then you focus 100% effort on your next game. That is what I expect from game devs.

I don't play MMOs in general. Tried a few, they were all awful, even the paid ones.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Final Boss]

Well first of, numbered ratings are stupid and it's often just an arbitrary thing, but more to the point:
a game's integrity is already ruined if it has appalling microtransactions, and deserves to be shat on and if you insist on using number or % ratings or whatever, it needs to take away points, not just be ignored, because most of the time the game is designed to get you to spend and not just an extra thing. And I'm confident in saying this that objectively microtransactions should lower a game's score, because the kinda stuff they're selling now was just part of a game before. Not anymore, now it's something you get in addition to a game. You're inevetably gonna compare a game to other and older games (because in you have to decide why you should play this instead of something else, because it's obviously not completely unique, and because you just need a point of reference), especially if it's a new one in a series, and older games just had more stuff in them. Unlockables are/were something you put in addition, microtransactions are most often something you took out of the game and are selling it seperately.


Also deleting a review isn't 0/10, that's like saying not reviewing a game is giving it 0/10, it's just not rating it. Furthermore, in this specific case, where the microtransactions were added after release, it does pretty much void the review, since as I stated, I consider it to be an important part .

[PriestTroit]

He said the game was actually still good. It's in the video. He even said he believes he's over reacting.

[Borghir]

If I was interested in the game and decided to watch a review first before buying I could have stumbled upon his original review, which would have outdated information and would give the message that there are no Microtransactions. I don't think he wanted that message to come across anymore.

Now he could've updated his videos with a warning of the changes at the start, but we all know that Microtransactions change quality of life and gameplay of a game. More grinding and less rewards for simply playing the game.

I see the removal of his original review as a message to the developer that any positive feeling he had about the game is completely out the window and that he doesn't want people thinking the game is still good