- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Gotta love how it’s review bombing and couldn’t possibly be legitimate reviews by people who dislike microtransactions and the recent trend of companies hiding shit like this until the very last second.
I call it review awareness with real people who aren’t scared of being blacklisted highlighting and informing normal people of aspects of the game paid reviewers ignore and don’t bother to go back and update their score out of fear.
Could it just be that review bombing as a term has come to mean people mobilising to negatively review a game and not necessarily being linked to it being a scummy practice? I’m not very familiar with too many instances of it happening, but can accept that in reading this review that the author does seem to agree with people doling out the negative reviews for the bait and switch on microtransactions.
Yeah. Between putting basic game feature additional charges (you can still get them, but with money you get it faster) behind a paywall and the shit-tastic performance issues, I definitely expected it to get terrible reviews.
So you think the ratings people are giving it reflect a balanced consideration of all the game’s aspects including story, gameplay, graphics, art direction, sound design, and the existence of microtransactions for things trivially earnable in normal gameplay?
I’m all for people sending a giant middle finger to publishers putting in unnecessary cash grabs into games by hitting them where it hurts in reviews (which do impact lifetime sales numbers).
But let’s not try to call this anything but what it is. Giving zero score reviews for something you don’t like existing in the game (whether gender options to microtransactions) irrespective of the quality of the game outside of those things existing is literally “review bombing.”
It’s ok to be that, and it serves an important protest function in the industry, but let’s call a spade a spade here.
Think of it this way -
If you have a marvelous feast laid out across the entire table, made of all your favorite foods, and right next to plate of pie is a bowl of cow shit - it doesn’t matter how good the pie is, you’re still going to smell the shit and it will ruin the experience.
The fact that there are microtransactions changes me from buying it to not buying it. Clearly a lot of people feel the same.
But yes, the addition of monetization I’m not OK with absolutely can turn a 10/10 game to a 0/10 game. Quality isn’t an average. It’s the end product. A single flaw can very easily make a masterpiece into a pile of shit.
It’s not possible for something that affects gameplay changing your review to be a review bomb under any circumstances.
Such a disappointment. I was starting to look forward to grabbing it on PS5 but I’ll probably pass. I missed the boat on the first one anyway.
You can still play the first one, dark arisen is also currently in the second tier of PS+ and worth to at least look at :)
It’s excellent and the microtransactions are literally pointless cash grabs added in after development.
I’m about 20 hours in, having an absolute blast with probably my most enjoyed RPG in years, and I literally have too many of every item in the cash store except one that I know I’ll eventually have quite enough of too, especially on what’s a certain NG+ for me.
The game itself is outstanding. The protest against CAPCOM throwing BS into single player games is warranted, but if you like action RPGs don’t accidentally cut off your nose in spite by passing on a gem of a game with a greedy publisher.
There’s literally not anything in the store you should buy and doing so will reduce your enjoyment of the game rather than enhance it. It’s the opposite of Ubisoft where gameplay pacing is designed with things like XP boosts in mind.
The store is simply there to trick whales and suckers as an afterthought, and those who do purchase certain items will harm their gameplay loops.
it doesnt matter if the microtransaction is a cash grab. Its a waste of time puting it in a game. Might as well spend all that time optimizing the game.
I was hoping they would have adapted the qol improvements from ddon but I never imagined they would have brought over the microtransactions
Removed by mod
Honestly, everyone suddenly angry about this is asleep at the wheel, capcom has been doing this for years. And it never affects the base game, so I just can’t bring myself to care at all
I do wish that internet communities were less focused on outrage. Lemmy was pretty good for that maybe 8 months ago or so, but that’s passed.
It always affects the base game.
Your entire design process is impacted by the mere existence of microtransactions.
In some cases yes, like Ubisoft. They do design the game around the transactions.
In this case the transactions are clearly being added in at the end by the publisher and weren’t influencing the development itself.
Like seriously - selling me a wakestone or ferrystone? A dozen or so hours in I had too many to carry and was putting them in storage for a rainy day. Literally just grabbing two starter pawns from others and camping out will get you wakestones in a few minutes.
The port crystal is the only useful item in the store, and frankly if you buy it you ruin your gameplay curve.
The base game without microtransactions is paced exactly like the first game. The microtransactions here ruin the gameplay design if bought in one case and are worthless in the other cases. The base game without buying anything is what it was designed around and is also going to be the most enjoyable way to play.
Again, this stuff has been in multiple capcom games, and it hasn’t impacted anything. Nothing on re4 was devalued by its microtransactions either. It’s fine. For other companies that actually make things grinder sure, maybe. But this one just doesn’t do that. Which people might know if they paid attention.
Honestly, people are just looking for an axe to grind. I’d love to see this effort towards companies that do mass layoffs or something instead. But this case is totally inconsequential
You claiming it didn’t affect anything doesn’t make it reality.
It’s fundamentally not possible for it not to change the design process of a game. Literally every game ever made with micro-transactions has been affected in one way or another, unless the first time the idea was discussed was after the game was shipped. “Just cosmetics” guarantees cosmetics that would have been earned with gameplay get taken away to be put behind a paywall, and all of the exploration and discovery involved in earning them is gone.
All microtransactions make games worse, and all microtransactions are bad.
it’s the same system that was in the first game they just let idiots buy a thing to skip the mechanic. Unless you think this future implementation of micro transactions affected the past.
It’s not the same system. It’s new code, built and tuned for the current version of the game. And it’s literally impossible for it not to be affected by the knowledge that microtransactions were going to exist.
But let’s play make believe that it was theoretically possible for any microtransaction to not be actively malicious. Lying about it would still make everyone involved a bad person.
The first game had a built in eternal ferrystone when it saw most of its success.
In no way is paying 3$ for every ferrystone except 5 the same as an eternal ferrystone.
Even things like valve’s key systems in TF2/CS?
Absolutely.
The key gambling system 100% impacted the community, who are the ones to provide gameplay to each other in these games.
All previous Counter-Strike game had a 100% level playing field— all players had access to the same gear and visuals. This equity was very important to gameplay by keeping it competitive, specifically being able to recognize weapons and enemies easily.
CS:GO took a sharp turn with this, effectively ending equity in the game. Not only did you have to spend money if you wanted you or your gear to look like others, but it also made it much more difficult to recognize enemies and gear people were carrying unless you more carefully inspected them. Bits sticking out around corners became much more difficult to recognize.
There is likely much more impact to the game and its development on various levels, but this is a clear example of a negative impact of microtransactions being introduced.
And in TF2, where disabling skins is a console command away? Frankly surprised there’s no similar option in GO/2.
In TF2, players cannot completely disable the hats. It takes a server operator employing mods or plugins to disable them. The equity was there. It ended with CS:GO.
As well, even if a player could opt out of seeing them, it doesn’t change the fact that the game was built around the gambling and still impacts other players you interact with.
There are some non-competitive games I think handle cosmetic-only micro transactions well (ex: Last Epoch). But I don’t try to fool myself that it doesn’t impact development or gameplay.
Yes.
They sent review copies without those features so they would get higher scores. It’s not a bunch of whiny nerds with nothing better to do, they literally pulled a bait and switch.
Also if you think gaming news doesn’t belong in a gaming community you’re free to start your own instance.
People who say this are corporate bootlicking. They want to shame you for a natural response to a deceptive abusive tactic.
https://readwrite.com/capcom-backtracks-quickly-and-removes-drm-after-players-rebel/
The only way this shit gets fixed is by players being vocal and reacting appropriately to the issues.
Intentionally fucking the game up to force people into microtransaction is clearly bad and should be shamed. It’s common sense.
I’m not sure if I agree on the microtransaction part, but I do agree when you say that internet gaming community have too much outrage now… Can’t people enjoy anything nowdays?
