Well, it is completely optional. So what am I supposed to be angry about, exactly? I've never even looked at the store.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Gears 5's microtransactions, Tour of Duty rewards, and playable characters need to be addressed.
- Thread starter Twenty5Thousand
- Start date
Well, it is completely optional. So what am I supposed to be angry about, exactly? I've never even looked at the store.
I understand why you don't like the current model.
But saying that is the same as saying Gears 5 is adding maps for free
Adding them for "free" in the midst of a mtx system in a full priced game. The issue is still going to be the grasping by the mtx scheme that does not need to be in there.
Going by the apparently low retail figures and Game Pass adoption Gears 5 has also been free/$2 for a lot of people. In my case very literally. I got just under 3 years worth of game pass for free when I converted my Xbox account to ultimate. I'd hazard a guess that right now the majority of people playing Gears 5 have paid nowhere near "full price" for it.
Non lootbox cosmetic microtransactions are simply the best way companies have monetize extended online play. They have been trying for a very long time and every other method has been awful. Pay to win mechanics, expensive map packs that divide the community, loot boxes etc. The prices are high (thank fortnite for the standard they set) but you don't need every single skin to enjoy the game and the support, patches and gametypes that come in the future.
Personally I love that so many mutiplayer games get content and updates for years instead of yearly sequels. I enjoyed it in TF2, Overwatch. CSGO, Rocket League and Fortnite even though I will agree lootboxes are problematic and I'm glad they are kinda of being phased(in some capacity). Microtransactions shops where you see what you get at a set price are by far the best method to monetize games for long term support.
Do they need microtransactions? Can they afford not to have them? Probably. But that revenue stream tends to be the incentive for better support. Yeah there a few games that get extended support with no microtransactions but they are very rare. I like my multiplayer games to have healthy support. I play them for hundreds if not thousands of hours and if they have a shop I can throw a few bucks at every few months and get something cool I tend to do it cause it's worth my time and I'm okay supporting a dev for more updates that benefit everyone and keeps the game populated and community active.
Personally I love that so many mutiplayer games get content and updates for years instead of yearly sequels. I enjoyed it in TF2, Overwatch. CSGO, Rocket League and Fortnite even though I will agree lootboxes are problematic and I'm glad they are kinda of being phased(in some capacity). Microtransactions shops where you see what you get at a set price are by far the best method to monetize games for long term support.
Do they need microtransactions? Can they afford not to have them? Probably. But that revenue stream tends to be the incentive for better support. Yeah there a few games that get extended support with no microtransactions but they are very rare. I like my multiplayer games to have healthy support. I play them for hundreds if not thousands of hours and if they have a shop I can throw a few bucks at every few months and get something cool I tend to do it cause it's worth my time and I'm okay supporting a dev for more updates that benefit everyone and keeps the game populated and community active.
Surely the ongoing subscription for Gamepass is what's meant to generate revenue.
Not micro transactions.
Not micro transactions.
Jesus Christ I'm so tired of the "its just cosmetic" defense of aggressive and unnecessary monetization. What year is it?
Unnecessary? They aren't going to support and add to the game for years for free by giving everything away.
Is it really that hard for you to accept that alot of people don't give a shit if the person they are shooting at have a skin they barely notice when it means every map and new mode is free?
Its both.
Gamepass should provide revenue to Microsoft. But the ongoing subscription isn't going to cover supporting games like Gears long term.
Thats where micro transactions comes in. It allows them to invest more into esport tournaments, invest more into new maps to play, new unlocks for the battle pass, into improving the map maker further, etc etc.
Man do you not understand my argument at all, you said that maps are free since they were free to all users regardless of the system in place, so why are you putting your own definition in quotation marks.
My point is that if you want to argue Gears 1 montezation is better than do so, don't just make stuff up to do so since it's the same as cosmetics don't matter, paying for early access doesn't matter.
Or, having the mtx allows gamepass to be incredibly affordable.
It's 2019. Can you actually articulate a reason that I should be upset about this? People have the option to pay money to change their character's appearance in Gears 5. So what?
What exactly is the subscription for what's likely a majority of the player base playing the game for? The "it's just cosmetics" argument has been dismantled time and time again because they aren't simply "cosmetics".
Sure they don't actively hinder other players but they do impact the enjoyment of the game for large amounts of people, enough that people will shell out asinine amounts of real money for things that were once unlockable through more reasonable means.
Do you REALLY like a skin? Better buy it now before it's gone for who knows how long. It's not as egregious as something like overwatch since it isn't tied to lootboxes but you don't see that as predatory?
If someone with a slapping premium skin killed me in game, I'd give up gaming and move to Alaska.
There's no greater shame in life.
But Rainbow 6 Seige does all that without an ongoing subscription.
As does Fortnite a free to play game.
Rocket league, Paladins, Warframe.
They couldn't do all those things with my monthly sub?
As does Fortnite a free to play game.
Rocket league, Paladins, Warframe.
They couldn't do all those things with my monthly sub?
Interesting to learn amongst the cries of 'IT'S JUST COSMETICS!' that Xbox game pass isn't just another subscription service you're expected pay for indefinitely if you want access to games you might want to play. It's mana from fucking heaven handed down from Phil and you should accept microtransations by the bucket load you unworthy heathens. I wonder how acceptable adverts on Netflix would be to these defenders? I mean you don't have to watch them. Just look away from the screen!
No because we're arguing past each other, I belive MTX is inherently profit seeking bullshit that does not belong in a purchased game, gear's 1 was better in that you could get all the maps for free without mtx. But all this nickle and dimeing is bullshit greed in every game it exist in.
You want to cape for mtx is cool and not anti consumer because of "value" and longer bits of string. We're not going to see eye to eye as I think mtx is inherently problematic and you don't.
Like, remember when paying $2.50 for Horse Armor in Oblivion was the butt of every joke? It's become so normal now to pay upwards of 10x more for a skin when it was once seen as utterly asinine.
Not really. Microsoft games have been heavily monetized like this most of the current gen. Look at Gears 4, Halo 5, all of the Forzas.
Hell, Halo 5 had a competitive mode that was basically pay to win tied behind lootboxes. War zone or whatever it was called.
If Horse Armor was $20 and Shivering Isles was going to be free people wouldn't have complained nearly as much tbh.
So hold. We are getting tons of free content, substantial content, but because it's game pass everything should be free including ongoing support? Ahh... that's not how it works.
I understand some people want the systems to be changed/prices to decrease/other options but I really wonder what the hell some of you were thinking when posting.
Just seems like some of you are ready to jump on game pass "see I knew this would happen!" without really giving anything a thought.
but maybe I'm wrong. Could you elaborate further on what you mean?
Like Gears 4 had loot boxes lol. I don't see Gears 5 doing things that much different than Rocket League.
They provided substantial free DLC for Gears 4 and if that's the same case here I think people would be pleased.
Personally I would love to see skin prices reduced. But tbh even if they were reduced I don't think I would buy them unless I really liked something.
Coalition needs long term revenue because they are planning on supporting Gears 5 long term. Gamepass or $60 covers the upfront cost, campaign/hoard/versus/escape/etc. Microtransactions will help keep it supported long term.
I picture you muttering "serenity now" constantly in front of your computer.
This is not even remotely a 1:1 comparison. People have already paid for the game at retail and just as many are paying for a subscription service that allows access to the game, of which this will be the most played. It already creates a constant revenue beyond the initial sales.
My point isn't that MTX is the best solution, it's that your solution still has some way to get money out of consumers so that maps get added, you should portray your argument honestly and not just say this part doesn't matter like cosmetics.
Yeah I'm not a fan of MTX but these skins don't need to be bought at all
Gamers whine about the darnedest things.
You literally don't have to pay for any of this and people are arguing the case for those who freely choose to do so anyway and figuratively shaking their fists in the air saying if we point out how it's simply cosmetic that "we're part of the problem".
Relax. It's not that big a deal and this is the most reasonable way they could go about it even if I agree that the prices for skins is too high. I realize however that a ton of things will have to covered through MTX seeing as this title is being consumed by folks who paid pennies to the dollar for GP.
You literally don't have to pay for any of this and people are arguing the case for those who freely choose to do so anyway and figuratively shaking their fists in the air saying if we point out how it's simply cosmetic that "we're part of the problem".
Relax. It's not that big a deal and this is the most reasonable way they could go about it even if I agree that the prices for skins is too high. I realize however that a ton of things will have to covered through MTX seeing as this title is being consumed by folks who paid pennies to the dollar for GP.
Maps and weapons are an even more integral part of the game, and those require some additional Funding to justify committing dev time towards.
It's even more anti-consumer that you're apparently happy to see us go back to the dire days of paid map packs that segregate the community and force friends to fork out money just to play together.
Nobody is 'brainwashed' here. They just understand the realities of business.
MTX for cosmetics is the best solution.
You are not supposed to unlock everything and people don't want to pay for new content in form of Season Pass.
Pricey comsmetics are there for a reason, this is exactly how things work in a lot of MP games nowadays.
Cosmetic non-P2W Microtransactions and free content, there's nothing to whine about it at all, you don't get powerups if you spend money and you can easily I G N O R E them.
I play R6 Siege and this game has free content that can unlocked behind a bit of grind and on top of that there is:
- Season Pass every year
- EXTREMELY pricey skins
- Lootboxes
- They recently added Battlepass
Gears 5 in comparison is pretty generous.
And let's not pretend that free support is "free", and The Coalition should release free content and put every skin for free, because that's not happening
Lootboxes are enabling OW to get free content every year
Season Passes + Lootboxes + MTX for skins are enabling Siege to get relatively free content every year and so on
You are not supposed to unlock everything and people don't want to pay for new content in form of Season Pass.
Pricey comsmetics are there for a reason, this is exactly how things work in a lot of MP games nowadays.
Cosmetic non-P2W Microtransactions and free content, there's nothing to whine about it at all, you don't get powerups if you spend money and you can easily I G N O R E them.
I play R6 Siege and this game has free content that can unlocked behind a bit of grind and on top of that there is:
- Season Pass every year
- EXTREMELY pricey skins
- Lootboxes
- They recently added Battlepass
Gears 5 in comparison is pretty generous.
And let's not pretend that free support is "free", and The Coalition should release free content and put every skin for free, because that's not happening
Lootboxes are enabling OW to get free content every year
Season Passes + Lootboxes + MTX for skins are enabling Siege to get relatively free content every year and so on
Gears 1 was made in what, 2005? For most likely no more than a third of the budget of Gears 5. And still sold for the same $60.
Consumers are making out like bandits by paying the same damn $60 they paid 14 years ago.
Content wise, Gears 5 is MUCH bigger than Gears 1, and nobody is 'nickel and diming' You to play through it completely and get all the achievements.
R6 has a season pass, new battle pass and MTX for skins. Iirc.
There were games when I was a kid that already costed the equivalent to 60 euros.
Scarcity is the new trend I'm afraid. Can it be done better and more generous (ie no rotation), of course. Loot boxes are so much worse to me. THAT is predatory, getting people to purchase something for. 1/500 chance of something they want. But like you admitted, it doesn't effect gameplay.
I'm not arguing the system in Gears 5 is great, I just took issue with your overall statement about the, 'it's just cosmetic' argument. We can throw around anecdotal stories and use terms like 'many people' but that doesn't change the fact the people buying this stuff are in the vast minority. It's just a fact that most people don't give a shit and aren't the type of people you describe whose experience is ruined seeing someone else with a gold gun skin they may have wanted. That's why things are priced the way they are and lootboxes and rotation or seasonal items exist.
It all comes down to the fact that we all value things differently. A gamer whose hard pressed for cash at times may balk at a 10 dollar skin, but to a well paid or seasoned gamer who only plays a few things a year that can only squeeze in so much playtime a week, the thought of throwing around what amounts to a movie ticket for something cool, or a jump potion in an mmo to save themselves 40 hours, is nothing. That's worth it and improved their experience. I would say they are probably more of them than there are the people you describe, who get pissed seeing some cosmetic they didn't want to pay for/unavailable yet. Whales keep alot of the industry afloat and I say let them for the benefit of the rest of us.
And again, saying that doesn't mean I'm suddenly 100% in support of every games implementation.
Is there anything wrong with the statement? It is optional and it is cosmetic only.
Where are this kind of threads for other AAA games? Is this because gears 5 is too positive so someone has to find something to complain about?
No because this is how things work if you want free post-launch content.
Because I've seen the argument many times that 3rd parties have to have MTX because they solely rely on software revenues, don't have any incentive to sell hardware and have to pay 30% tax to console makers. Every time someone brings up a 1st party game with nil in-game MTX (like aforementioned Splatoon 2) they're shot down by saying "because its first party and they can afford it". So which is it?
Perhaps it's the lack of self control over "nice" cosmetics? "It looks so good, I must buy it! Oh no, it's expensive but I cannot resist! They are ripping me off!"
I just don't understand the issue at all.
I mean, we are customers in the end who can decide on their own what to buy and what to not buy. And that applies to *everything* in our every day life.
It's also the only way that GaaS can even exist in the long term. Is there even any GaaS game that has a long term support without any monetization in place?
A big issue is a lot of the time "whales" aren't just people with lots of disposable income. It's not uncommon for them to be regular people with addictive personalities that happened to have that triggered by a particular game and they begin dumping money into them without realizing it. $15 here, $20 there. Multiple times a month and it starts to add up.
Then they can also get stuck in this vicious cycle where they've "invested" so much into the game it would be embarrassing or silly to stop. This doesn't always have to be the extreme case of someone spending dozens of thousands of dollars, but multiple double digit purchase a month, with forced scarcity (in this context), seems like a bad solution.
This isn't my picking on gears in particular, it's the state of the industry as a whole. Gears just happens to be the game this thread is about.
Quite shocking to me is that people actually complain about Gears 5's system but for games like OW or similar they just don't care.
Whatever floats your boat I guess.
Whatever floats your boat I guess.
I remember the pre-launch interview with the devs, who said they were 'ahead of the curve' of the industry when it comes to microtransactions. They were really up their own ass with that one, what nonsense.
They are for sure ahead of Siege, OW and COD monetization schemes.
Reading this thread just confirms I'm old and out of touch....is value for money an outdated concept around here?
Full game with lots of content = $60(or Gamepass,whatever).
Character skin = $10.
Microsoft/Coalition are taking the piss.
Full game with lots of content = $60(or Gamepass,whatever).
Character skin = $10.
Microsoft/Coalition are taking the piss.
Full game with lots of D1 content is 60$
How do you suppose to support a game with free content without selling skins?
This has been the model since early this gen and now people are surprised, we have even worse monetization schemes but they flew under ERA radar.
Expensive optional skins are so much better to support a game than season pass that split the player base.