So then way it was before lootboxes. Hardly new and hardly newsworthy.
Still, it's nice to see more games not feature gambling.
Still, it's nice to see more games not feature gambling.
-
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.
The Coalition to Games Industry: Gears 5 "ahead of the industry" on monetising without loot boxes
- Thread starter Cactuar
- Start date
"Horse Armor" purchased with in game currency that is purchased with real money now considered the "best" way to do "required monetization" on a full priced "game".
Someone should go back to 2006 and post this on a gaming forum to see the reactions.
Someone should go back to 2006 and post this on a gaming forum to see the reactions.
Lol the fuck is this article?
Ok sure, no loot boxes, you still buy fake money, with real money, can only be spent at this specific store, in weird denominations that make you need to purchase more of their fake money. Why the fuck not just sell it for actual money and be done with it?
It's fucking itchy and scratchy money.
Ok sure, no loot boxes, you still buy fake money, with real money, can only be spent at this specific store, in weird denominations that make you need to purchase more of their fake money. Why the fuck not just sell it for actual money and be done with it?
It's fucking itchy and scratchy money.
Well i'm glad they are patting themselves on the back for this. What are they thinking.
Innovative and industry-leading would be no microtransactions at all. This is just the same kind of predatory MTX we've seen for years.
Thread title needs a heavy edit for sure.
Innovative and industry-leading would be no microtransactions at all. This is just the same kind of predatory MTX we've seen for years.
Thread title needs a heavy edit for sure.
Their tone is really weird and out of touch. It's as if they're proud of their gross microtransactions since they're just a bit less predatory than some of those other ones out there and customers should feel grateful for that..
What kind of creator takes pride in an exploitative system?
What kind of creator takes pride in an exploitative system?
"in-game currency Iron, which can be used to purchase cosmetics."
"There are also two separate systems for gaining content: an unlockable customisation system called Tour of Duty, and then Supply where players get free content just for playing the game. The two content pools are separate."
It seems a little bit too complicated to called it "player-friendly". In which content pool Iron are useable ? Does I gain Iron by playing the game ?
And the whole rhetoric of "we are doing bad things but others do the same thing but worse so we are the good guys and we should be praised for that", just no.
"There are also two separate systems for gaining content: an unlockable customisation system called Tour of Duty, and then Supply where players get free content just for playing the game. The two content pools are separate."
It seems a little bit too complicated to called it "player-friendly". In which content pool Iron are useable ? Does I gain Iron by playing the game ?
And the whole rhetoric of "we are doing bad things but others do the same thing but worse so we are the good guys and we should be praised for that", just no.
Its not exploitative, its an option. If the grind itself is purposefully padded out to coerce you to purchase then thats an exploit, but thats not something we can glean from this article.
Didn't Apex Legends recently get trashed for doing basically the same thing? And that's a free game whereas this is full price
The sheer volume of Evolve's slicing up of a game to sell it's constituent parts is what drew criticism...as well as the fact they were promoting that shit well before the game even released. They didn't try to hide the fact they were creating a shell of a game for $60, then selling all the little bits and pieces that used to be in games as content for extra. Evolve's system was shitty, loot boxes are shitty. Loot boxes are more exploitative, but we're still just grading piles of shit here...at the end of the day, it all stinks.
So can you pay to level up faster? Because that seems like it compromises the integrity of the experience since the people willing to spend more money would be the ones on top of the food chain.
Have you played Evolve/overwatch ?
They handle dlc in a complete different way.
What Gears 5 is doing is the same thing Fornite is doing. I think everyone has seen the success of that approach so they're ditching lootboxes and that has the additional benefit of appearing to be consumer friendly (until cosmetics are priced at $15 and up).
OP
OP
I don't necessarily disagree, as it's the actual Gears developers making the claim to be "ahead of the industry" on monetization, I just wanted to keep the thread title in line with the article title, and source the material. But yes, it's the developers who say they are leading the industry on monetization.
Reminds me of EA and the NHL series in a way. Take a feature out of the game, only to bring it back years later as a "new feature" or "innovative"
Edit: oops didn't mean to quote anyone lol
My thoughts as well. The only way it will be revolutionary is if they actually let you buy the exact amount of currency required for the item you want.
Even then, I think that's been done before.
What? This isn't new or innovative. Plenty of other games already have real money stores and no loot boxes.
In addition, Overwatch advertised that it would be an expanding game with new modes, heroes, maps, events, etc all for a single up-front purchase. Lootboxes turned out to be a really bad thing for gaming, but Overwatch needed a long term monetisation system to support it's model or else it would be selling character/map packs as DLC (which would fragment the playerbase).
They are so ahead of the industry that it looks they are behind. Probably 2 or more laps ahead.
How about GI.biz does a feature celebrating AAA games that don't have any additional monetisation, like most output from Sony and Nintendo?
When those companies do multiplayer they generally have additional things to sell though. Last MP game I played from Sony was Uncharted 4's and it had stuff you could buy. Smash has dlc/pre-order bonus, etc. The longer you support these games the more the companies will look for ways to continue paying for those updates.
Perhaps because the people who work on additional post launch content for their service games need to be paid money?
Halo 5 REQ packs but with the ability to buy individual items = the perfect in-game/mtx system
Super fair and rewarding system created by 343
(Once you got the BR or Halo 2 BR, I can't remember which was so "hard" to get)
So if Gears 5 could learn from them, I say go for it
Super fair and rewarding system created by 343
(Once you got the BR or Halo 2 BR, I can't remember which was so "hard" to get)
So if Gears 5 could learn from them, I say go for it
Yea and those games tend to have poor support or are single player games which I don't care about.
There aren't "plenty" of games with great support and no microtransactions.
That's not to say that this article and this guy's statements aren't stupid af though. Direct purchase microtransactions came before lootboxes lol. Most games still use them over lootboxes.