Take Two Interactive commits to putting Microtransactions in EVERY FUTURE GAME in continuation of Games As a Service.

[Fetzie]

2 hours ago, TimeOmnivore said:

Terrible ideas from r/civ when this news broke:

Oh God, please no. If this happens, I guess the last Civilization game I ever play will be Civ V. Not that that's too bad, since Civ V is a great game, but still. Goddammit publishers, why can't you just not fuck over your customers with needless bullshit? If every game they published from now on was free-to-play, I would be less pissed about it (although still very much pissed), but it's practically guaranteed that they'll still be releasing full $60 games, which basically screws over all of the franchises under Take Two. I'm just sad right now.

Or in the next GTA game, they could hide ˋre-do missionˋ behind a paywall /shudders  

[Belgarathian]

I don't have an issue with this, so long as micro-transactions don't effect gameplay i.e, exp boosts or skins. 

 

DLC actually ads new content and mechanics, rather than the current trend of "we only released 60% of the game, so you can buy the rest in installments of 20%!"

[MoonSpot]

Buying re-re-releases of Elder scrolls Skyrim is starting to look like a better and better deal all the time.

[Egg-Roll]

24 minutes ago, Belgarathian said:

I don't have an issue with this, so long as micro-transactions don't effect gameplay i.e, exp boosts or skins. 

 

DLC actually ads new content and mechanics, rather than the current trend of "we only released 60% of the game, so you can buy the rest in installments of 20%!"

As long as they keep their main game promises I'm fine with dlc's and micro transactions. It's games like American truck simulator which has yet had a new map beyond the initial free 3 rd one a year and half ago. SCS is so fixated on micro dlc's any grandkids I might have would be getting ready for retirement before North America is completed, mod makers have more done then they have, sure less detail in the background but it's about distance for that game.

 

They hired the wrong mod maker, should of gone with a map maker.

 

Oh I don't buy AAA games or those requiring micro transactions to play (less bundle sites) so this update doesn't really effect me.

[KuJoe]

For anybody just joining the thread, here's the TLDR: Businesses operate to make money and Take Two is a business, so it wants to make money. No sources needed.

[Humbug]

50 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

For anybody just joining the thread, here's the TLDR: Businesses operate to make money and Take Two is a business, so it wants to make money. No sources needed.

The increased cost of AAA game development means that more publishers are desperately looking for additional revenue streams to make their projects profitable.

 

We need a revolution in  game developer tools and engines. It just takes too many manhours to make a AAA game. This is not sustainable...

[KuJoe]

9 minutes ago, Humbug said:

The increased cost of AAA game development means that more publishers are desperately looking for additional revenue streams to make their projects profitable.

 

We need a revolution in  game developer tools and engines. It just takes too many manhours to make a AAA game. This is not sustainable...

And when developers find a solution, the consumers riot.

[Keystone Nyan Cat]

Warframe's spoiled me. I get ALL massive content updates- whether it's new gameplay mechanics, weapons, events, etc.; even graphics, maps, frames- all for FREE. It's annoying after playing this game to hop onto another game and find out that they've not had any updates since 6 months.

 

As such- I've begun to sink money into the game to aquire things like syndanas (capes), and alternative designs for my favorite frames; making money that would otherwise go towards other games into Warframe. And I WANT to give them more money for fashion- it doesn't give me a skill someone else has- nor a legup- but it goes into other players appreciating how good I look.

 

I don't need to pay money because I WANT to continue playing the game by having that newest map like Battlefield may do or be left alone on the standard maps; I HAVE TO if I want to continue enjoying my $60 purchase. With Warframe, I WANT to give the devs money- I don't have to. It's dissapointing to see the direction most devs take with financing their games, but to each their own I suppose.

 

For me- I doubt I'll ever pay money for DLC- if it's something like Euro Truck- I'll just wait till the devs die out and stop putting out DLC, and then buy the whole lot at once go, but I've learned the hard way to never pay $60 upfront as those devs will make you pay that much all over again to continue playing that damn game.

[Eaglerino]

Sadly people won't stop buying these games. The only reason literally the only reason microtransactions exist is because some people spend exorbitant amounts of cash on them. It's our own fault

[FloRolf]

This is why we can't have nice things

[suicidalfranco]

TL;Dr: more time to spend on warframe and path of exile. Got your message wide and clear

[Dabombinable]

As long as they release 2 versions of each game. One that is actually complete at $60, and another incomplete one $30 or less with DLC & micro-transactions (instead of having an incomplete game at $60+ with micro-tansactions).

[Mooshi]

Guess it's a good thing I find most AAA stuff boring and mainly play Blizz games or indie on PC.

 

On a serious note, we have only ourselves to blame for supporting this trend. Like others, I only get DLC/Deluxe stuff usually when it's bundled at a discount for Steam sales.

 

"I don't have a problem with micro transactions if.." that if is why this allowed to reach the state it is today.

[Alariel]

Heck if that's the way games are gonna be from now on... I might actually have to go get a life... or whatever it is that non-gamers do with their spare time.

[MyName13]

5 hours ago, Humbug said:

The increased cost of AAA game development 

Isn't this a myth?Costs might have increased, but so did the audience.

[Master Disaster]

I wanna talk about Red Dead Revolver 2 (and Rockstar in general)... (EVERYTHING HERE IS OPINION OR RUMOR, TAKE WITH SALT)

 

I personally think RDR 2s single player campaign is pretty safe, R* have enough weight to pushback against Take 2 on this issue and a genuinely believe they will too. They invented almost the perfect system in GTA V, it made them billions without jepordising the integrity of the game and was pretty fair to everyone, at least it was until they started messing with balance to increase the grind factor. Take Two simply cannot force R* into messing with RDRs SP imo.

 

Now with that said, my worry is that R* won't make too many more games with SP content at all moving forward. Whose familiar with the name Leslie Benzies? He was the so called driving force behind GTA however rumor has it he was much more than that. Recently there's been a lot of stuff flying around about the state of Rockstar as a company and it all seems to centre around the Housers and Benzies falling out and what's happened since Benzies left R*.

 

For those who don't know, Benzies was executive producer on all GTA games since 3, he basically was GTA but he (apparently) was also pretty much running R* North and was also a big cheese at R* San Diego too. It was Benzies who was behind most of R*s biggest hits since they went 3D.

 

So apparently R* North (where Benzies was basically running the show) has not been a nice working environment for a long time and the rumors are that Benzies was sacked by the Housers because he tried to change things in favour of the workforce and the Housers didn't appreciate it very much.

 

Well now things appear to have gotten worse at R*, MUCH WORSE. There's been a huge slew of disgruntled employees taking to the internet to talk about life at R*. Apparently the companies turnover of staff is just silly, it's been described as a revolving door situation and one person has said "for every one in there's at least one out". Rockstar North are struggling to hold onto developers in a big way and that website where workers rate their company, yeah R* North has 1 star (the worst rating out of all listed gaming studios).

 

So now former employee are talking about how R* are going to be dropping single player games moving forward and after all current SP projects are wrapped up R* will be moving to online only games.

 

Basically by the end of this decade we might have lost the best single player development studio in existence.

 

I'm done as a gamer, I'll continue to pick up select titles in sales but the days of buying multiple games per month are a distant memory for me. The price gouging in unreal, hardware is more 2x expensive simply because it flashes and has the word gaming written on it and games, well you all know how those are these days. I've voted with my wallet.

[Humbug]

8 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Isn't this a myth?Costs might have increased, but so did the audience.

Not a myth. They need to sell huge amounts of copies to be profitable. And not every AAA game is going to sell like GTA V or Witcher 3.

 

AAA big game development needs to become more efficient with less manhours, faster roll-out thanks to more efficient engines and dev tools.

 

With the current system publishers are looking to increase revenue via unethical means in order to generate the required profits. The only other solution is to reduce the costs or charge more for games. E.g. $150 rather than $60.

[Mooshi]

21 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Not a myth. They need to sell huge amounts of copies to be profitable. And not every AAA game is going to sell like GTA V or Witcher 3.

 

AAA big game development needs to become more efficient with less manhours, faster roll-out thanks to more efficient engines and dev tools.

 

With the current system publishers are looking to increase revenue via unethical means in order to generate the required profits. The only other solution is to reduce the costs or charge more for games. E.g. $150 rather than $60.

I'd rather buy the game once and enjoy it over getting a purposely stripped version to spend more over time.

[kirashi]

10 hours ago, TetraSky said:

--SNIP--

Overall, I guess Take-Two will just join the list of bad publishers that I wouldn't feel bad at all for buying keys on G2A. (Alongside EA and Ubisoft)

I just don't buy keys for games from these companies anymore.  If it's not on Steam without extra DRM on top of Steam's DRM, I don't play it. That and I don't touch DLC, loot boxes, or crates / keys. I've got so many Rocket League crates it's not funny.

[MyName13]

39 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Not a myth. They need to sell huge amounts of copies to be profitable. And not every AAA game is going to sell like GTA V or Witcher 3.

 

AAA big game development needs to become more efficient with less manhours, faster roll-out thanks to more efficient engines and dev tools.

 

With the current system publishers are looking to increase revenue via unethical means in order to generate the required profits. The only other solution is to reduce the costs or charge more for games. E.g. $150 rather than $60.

Then why does the quality keep decreasing?Compare Assassin's Creed 2 to AC Syndicate, compare Mass effect 2 to ME andromeda, Prey (2017) looks identical to Dishonored (2012/2013).

[Cyberspirit]

10 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

Option A (Seemingly every micro transaction filled game) :

-$60 game

-Must buy DLC to get anywhere

- approx. 50 hours gameplay if that.

- DRM everywhere

Pretty much Forza Horizon 3 on PC.

[Master Disaster]

45 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Not a myth. They need to sell huge amounts of copies to be profitable. And not every AAA game is going to sell like GTA V or Witcher 3.

 

AAA big game development needs to become more efficient with less manhours, faster roll-out thanks to more efficient engines and dev tools.

 

With the current system publishers are looking to increase revenue via unethical means in order to generate the required profits. The only other solution is to reduce the costs or charge more for games. E.g. $150 rather than $60.

Wrong and it is a myth...

 

For a start games have increased in price, 5 years ago £40 would buy me any AAA title and I'd even get change from some, these days its £50 as a base price, some have even started pushing into the £60 territory (and yes, that's standard day one edition prices).

 

COD IW was classed as a flop by Activation despite selling 60 million units worldwide and topping the USA game console charts for the entire year.

 

What the publishers called profitable isn't what any other business would call profitable. You see in the AAA industry they're not just happy with making a profit, oh no that's not good enough. Before the game is even out they make projections of sales based on previous entries and/or market trends and then they apply these projections to the game as a solid profitability margin, essentially if the game doesn't make as much money as they thought it would its deemed unprofitable even if it technically still made money. This is a solid marketing practice for them because it means they can announce how x game wasn't profitable (despite the fact it actually was) and then use that as an excuse for extra monetisation.

 

You do realise Take Two made billions in profit last year (not revenue but profit) & EA made $800 million from Fifa ultimate team alone. Exactly how much money do these companies need to make before they can call the business profitable?

 

Please stop defending this utter bollocks, these AAA companies are all doing fine and dandy, to quote Jim Sterling "Having some money isn't good enough for them, no they're not happy until they have all the money in the world".

[AlTech]

8 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

I don't have an issue with this, so long as micro-transactions don't effect gameplay i.e, exp boosts or skins. 

 

DLC actually ads new content and mechanics, rather than the current trend of "we only released 60% of the game, so you can buy the rest in installments of 20%!"

This is 2K we're talking about. Micro Transactions affect gameplay to a great extent,

[Master Disaster]

21 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Then why does the quality keep decreasing?Compare Assassin's Creed 2 to AC Syndicate, compare Mass effect 2 to ME andromeda, Prey (2017) looks identical to Dishonored (2012/2013).

Because of focus testing and the industries obsession with making every game have mass appeal. Like a said above, making a game that is focused on one specific genre and then selling it and making a small profit just isn't good enough any more. If a game doesn't make 3 times its initial investment in profit then its classed as unprofitable and a flop.

 

Every game has to appeal to every person and the result is clones of clones of games (which just happened to do well) that are as dumbed down as possible and have no real genre because classifying a game under a genre might put a certain subset of people off from buying it.

 

Open World 3rd Person Action FPS with RPG Elements is the current obsession.

[AlTech]

7 hours ago, Tedny said:

I don't care, until it not like in Shadow of war, I can ignore few textures for real money 

Imagine if every future 2K game was like Shadow of War.

 

Cos eventually it will be like that.