-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Sea of Thieves to get MTX a few months post-launch (won’t affect power or progression, no lootboxes)
- Thread starter Deleted member 17990
- Start date
Well that's what microsoft said years ago. "You'll know what you're getting" sounds good at least.
OP
OP
Yep, sounds promising as far as microtransactions go.
SoT is GaaS - what did you expect? Reading what the mtx's are, that seems totally fine. Not everything that is mtx is crap.
Sounds fine to me. I hate lootboxes, partially because I don't like gambling for something I want but also because I have shit luck and always seem to get crap in them. I bought most of the prime titans in Titanfall 2 simply because I knew what I was getting and wanted it. Just provide stuff the person wants and they will probably buy it.
Sound good. I bet you'll also be able to buy specific pet emotes and other similar things. Perhaps ship figureheads as well.
Nothing wrong with this. Not long ago this kind of stuff was called DLC, as you're not buying hearts or lootboxes but actual content. Since it's cosmetics, I'll probably do like with fighters from last gen that sold hundreds of dollars worth of skins: simply don't buy them. And since you can get the game for 10$ per month too, I say it's fine if they occasionally try selling me some items like cool animals. I doubt I'll ever budge, but we'll see.
They are, but apparently you won't be able to buy the progression-linked cosmetics. Cash shop stuff being distinct from everything else is a good way to handle it, imo, though I'm curious to see if it ends up meeting revenue demands.
Of course it will - the game pass system necessitates the GAAS and mtx / lootbox model. I would expect every MS game going forward to be in this model.
It really looks like any big games coming out in the future are going to struggle to implement loot boxes in the way Star Wars did without causing a major backlash.
What's described here seems acceptable to me because it's not pay to win and it's not gambling. I wonder if it was always planned this way.
What's described here seems acceptable to me because it's not pay to win and it's not gambling. I wonder if it was always planned this way.
Sea of Thieves looks to be an example of a service-based game done right.
1) the game runs on dedicated servers
2) all future content is free, and there will be regular updates
3) paid content will be cosmetic, and will not impact power or progression
4) no loot crates, players will know what they are buying
Source.
1) the game runs on dedicated servers
2) all future content is free, and there will be regular updates
3) paid content will be cosmetic, and will not impact power or progression
4) no loot crates, players will know what they are buying
Source.
Yes. If you have played the game, you would know that the game has really no systems in place, that could make one player better than the other.
There is no kill streaks, better weapons nothing. Everyone is at the same playing field.
People had to see this coming for MSoft's first party titles right? How else will they recoup the investment lost from GamePass? 10$ a month will not equal out the loss of revenue they could have made by selling it for $60 to that customer, but microtransactions open up the possibility to milk those customers for that money and so much more if they whale.
Of course. Most games have micro or dlc now. It's pretty much expected no matter what system XGP or not. This is perfectly acceptable.
Idk if you meant to use it like that but I had to laugh. "If they whale" as if it's some hidden form that can trigger by chance.
When it's a premium shop that sells frivolous stuff that doesn't affect your gameplay but let's you pick the frivolous stuff you want instead of gambling for it, yeah you're probably alone. Most people like paying for stuff and getting it, not paying to have a chance of perhaps getting it maybe if they're lucky?
Goddamn I hope you are. Care to explain why exactly? Is it just the "surprise" of it all? Or do you genuinely hate knowing what you're paying for?
I'm not paying for anything in Overwatch that's the point
Now if we were talking about CSGO or TF2 where you have to buy keys in order to open lootboxes then yes I'd 100% prefer the premium shop
So they are going to pull the same bullshit of not having them at launch so reviewers don't give them too much grief over it.
Hmmmm, fair enough. I just don't like lootboxes in general, even when they're free, as grinding only gets more grindy if you have no idea what you're going to get as your character progresses; it just makes it difficult to set and meet goals in my opinion. I see your point though.
Or just read the thread and also read what the MT is gonna be.
OP and thread title should be updated tho.
Says it in the first paragraph.
Unless I'm missing something here. It's been a couple of days since I've looked like a dumbass.
You can buy lootboxes in overwatch though
I don't know enough about cosmetics in Sea of Thieves but if you can earn them in game somehow,(but also buy them if you don't want to bother) it seems like a better approach than lootboxes to me still simply by removing the gambling aspect. But personal opinions and etcetera
Wait, a multiplayer game with ongoing content and no subscription, available for a few bucks within GamePass, will have micro transaction ?
Greedy devs !
Greedy devs !
Yeah, I tried to edit my post and I ended quoting myself. Edge/Lumia combo is the worst.
I'm ok with this as long as there are no lootboxes.
My god, we've reached the day where microtransactions are considered a lesser evil.
My god, we've reached the day where microtransactions are considered a lesser evil.
You can still earn stuff without lootboxes, the system is not inherit to lootboxes.
Lootboxes just adds an additional layer of randominess
I agree, the title is sure to draw in concern and confusion.
Rare has addressed almost every common issue with service-based games, as I summarized in a previous post.
That should be the focus of the thread, not merely the presence of microtransactions.
I mean, these are non-lootbox, non-progression, non-p2w microtransactions implemented well after the game releases, which means it's probably not content that's been held back.
This is absolutely the best case scenario.
It isn't actually stated that only cosmetics will be purchasable via microtransactions, but based on the use of language, that is seemingly being implied. If true I don't really have much of an issue with it.
The only thing I'd say is that if content within the game is generally lacking or bare bones, or a lot of the game will be delivered via microtransactions and paid updates, I don't think it should be $60 to begin with.
People keep repeating GaaS as if that somehow justifies continously paying for updates to a game, where previously such content might have just been included in the game for the base price. GaaS doesn't have to necessarily mean the additional content will come at a cost, see a game like Gran Turismo Sport, which essentially is a GaaS type game, but where all post release updates, tracks, cars, content, modes etc, have thus far been free.
The only thing I'd say is that if content within the game is generally lacking or bare bones, or a lot of the game will be delivered via microtransactions and paid updates, I don't think it should be $60 to begin with.
People keep repeating GaaS as if that somehow justifies continously paying for updates to a game, where previously such content might have just been included in the game for the base price. GaaS doesn't have to necessarily mean the additional content will come at a cost, see a game like Gran Turismo Sport, which essentially is a GaaS type game, but where all post release updates, tracks, cars, content, modes etc, have thus far been free.
