I can read the thread, he was being hyperbolic sure, but was sticking to topic - he didn't bring stuff from outside the topic to make fun of people for their private beliefs. It's not okay. and but.. but .. he did it first!!! is a shitty excuse.
-
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.
YongYea: Ubisoft Defends Loot Boxes in Dismissive Response to Backlash, Points Finger at Gamers
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
so you have a problem that they monetised the grind, but if they didn't offer any booster packs and the game stayed the same, you wouldn't have a problem?
bruh, it's called an option for a reason. it isn't even intrusive.
and then form a narrative that these publishers are evil? I can't...
if the side quests have bad design and poor gameplay then it's the quests that are the problem, not the grind.i reckon you wouldn't be complaining about it if you found the side quests to be as enjoyable, if not more, than the main quests.
instead of fighting this stupid fight int he name of yongyea, why not demand ubisoft to give you better side content so that the grind does not feel like a grind?
if there is a failure in design it's the design of not making any more enjoyable content for the player. the content is there, it's abundant - they're just repetitive and not enjoyable.
i mean you grind more in fucking Persona 5 (and a lot of people gave up on it) but just because it didn't offer any mtx means it is the better grind, or is the better game (arguable). the point is that if the grind is fair (and not excessive like there are some jrpgs out there that's literally unfair) and the side content is compelling then even with the presence of mtx it should still be a good game.
the only problem i see is that the side quests range from just okay to shit. none of these other issues these youtubers are waging a war on.
The problem is people who defend lootboxes think if they're removed, the games they love will stop being made / drop in quality, because "the studio doesn't have enough money to make AAA games anymore." So they defend the lootbox system, and attack anyone who says otherwise because they see it as a threat to the gaming industry. While people who hate lootboxes think people who defend them are cancer because they have the moral high ground. It's a never ended battle.
Before we start attacking each other some more, let's factor into this discussion that Ubi spent over a year casting for two people to play essentially one lead character. Then they went and captured the lead's entire physical and vocal performance twice, once for each actor, which must have taken forever to do. Then they built a humongous world with all kinds of optional stuff to see and do, all of it with recorded scenes and dialogue, where you wouldn't even be able to use much of the XP offered by the game once you hit the level cap. (This is all day one base game stuff, even)
If they were planning this game from the start to maximize profits based on MTX schemes, then they did a terrible job because they front-loaded this game with such large development costs there would be no way to make those up with MTX participation.
If they were planning this game from the start to maximize profits based on MTX schemes, then they did a terrible job because they front-loaded this game with such large development costs there would be no way to make those up with MTX participation.
I actually distinctly remember a dev saying the opposite but obviously this a per company basis.
that poster brought it on himself by saying things like people with differing opinions are wearing tinfoil hats and that they'd be terrible as lawyers
Since when side-quests add nothing to gameplay? How someone even buy an massive Open World RPG, with tons and tons of content, if they don't want to do side-quests?
I don't think you really watched any of these videos. All of them are panelists/presenters from mobile and MMO developers. One is about payment methods (as in actual payment methods, technology adoptions rate across regions, etc)
Do you want me to make an addendum to my original statement and state that it's obviously influences mobile free games and MMOs?
I am absolutely honored to have so many fans on this website! Please, any more adoration and I'll have to charge for my time
What on earth do you think these companies are using as a basis for their games a service models? Come on now....
I'm seriously surprised you even made that point.
But he did it first! is not a good excuse, you mocked a person for a private belief, in a topic that had nothing to do with it. Just don't do it again, it's shitty. You can discuss MTX's without doing that.
One would think an arm chair attorney would be used to getting attention.
exactly. even in witcher 3 you had to do side-quests, really. otherwise the enemies will be too strong, or you'll have shit gear, or it'll be harder for you to obtain better gear because well you need money and money earned in main missions aren't enough. it's just how rpgs are. idk why suddenly sterling and yongyea and friends have made ubisoft their target for trying to be an rpg but having mtx on the side. like if they removed mtx it's still gonna be like any other rpg that pretty much necessitates the playing of side content.
Microtransactions make games worse, not better. Its okay to defend them if you only care about having cheaper games that don't value your time (for example, children often have a lot more time than money), or if you don't have any sympathy for people vulnerable to gambling-like systems, since they're after all subsidizing your entertainment. But please, spare me the effort of pretending that MTX don't affect game design: even if they sometimes don't, their very existance is useful to mask the games where it does.
Don't accept them as normal.
Don't accept them as good.
Don't accept them as normal.
Don't accept them as good.
Copying monetisation models (as in, exp boosters, premium currencies) is not the same as "significant gameplay mechanics were influenced or changed by mtx models"
OP
OP
Would you say that making a game that a lot of gamers want to buy is psychological manipulation? Because you know.... gamers like good games and developers are manipulating them to buy them. Don't get me wrong I understand that using gambling tactics to addict gamers is bad, but we have to make a distinction between that and having the option of buying an XP Booster on a US$60 game that it appears to be most gamers are satisfied with without buying it. The discussion can be a lot more nuanced than "Payed content/payed options = Bad". I would say that is the main reason for this thread.
Auto manufacturers aren't trying to entice children and gambling addicts.
That's just how every RPG out there worth its salt works. The RPGs where you can bum rush main quests without doing side content to level up are RPGs that are too easy or just not good. Can you give me an example of an open world RPG, that's challenging and good, where you can finish main quest without touching any side content? Even the paragon of great RPG that The Witcher 3 is, does this where you will be horribly underleveled if you don't do side content. You are never "locked out" you can start those missions but you'll just be extremely underleveld, but it's possible to tackle quests while being as much as 4-5 levels below the requirement. That's very generous by RPG standards. Infact you have to be doing absolutely nothing in the game except main quest to even be at a point where you feel like you cannot do anything in the game and as such forced to do side quests, in which case why would you even be playing a game like this?
And side content in Odyssey is actually good now with properly contained storylines, and a large portion of the side content is actually part of the main story itself (i.e. mythological beasts and cultists are all part of main story). Additionally every content in this game scales so even if you are level 40, that quest you got while at level 10 would still give you appropriate amount of XP to level up. This is unlike Origin where it was fixed, and that game didn't even have mtx. Lastly, I was able to level up at 1 level per hour for almost the entire game that's good progress.
Current AAA games wouldn't exist without a way to make more money from the player aside from the $60 entry fee. Microtransactions are a fairly benign (completely avoidable) solution to the problem.
The point being that these practices are being brought into the types of game that are being discussed here. And this has been happening for some time. Hell, it's the whole reason we're even having this conversation in the first place. Almost no one on a forum like Era/Gaf would give a shit had it stayed in the mobile space. What these videos show is that monetization is indeed thought out either beforehand or alongside production. Which leads any reasonable person to assume that design is indeed influenced by it to different degrees. Due to industry secrecy and lack of honesty we are left to wonder exactly how much and in what ways.
Funny how pretty much all the problems this fucking industry whines about are of their own making.
The shills in this thread absolutely baffle me. How anyone is fine with this nickle and diming bullshit based on a random chance for reward is beyond me. Knowing how addictive and alluring a random chance reward inherently is to many a human psyche, there should not be any form of it in any videogame where one can spend real life money on. It's exploitative and disgusting. I don't support it, I don't care for it.
But:
If you defend it cause it doesn't effect you cause you don't spend money on it then you wouldn't lose if the practice was not paygated and if rewards, random or otherwise could purely and only be earned through gameplay, so take a moment to consider what harm it can do to people, show some empathy.
If you defend them cause you like the sensation of them and like to spend money on them then I would recommend evaluating yourself, maybe even seek help. If you're convinced of your own sanity though you might wanna consider not giving your money to the ceo's and shareholders of a company who aim to stockpile it to attract more money and more more more until it's amounted to all the possible infinite money and consider donating it for a guaranteed chance of doing good instead a random one of some digital junk.
But:
If you defend it cause it doesn't effect you cause you don't spend money on it then you wouldn't lose if the practice was not paygated and if rewards, random or otherwise could purely and only be earned through gameplay, so take a moment to consider what harm it can do to people, show some empathy.
If you defend them cause you like the sensation of them and like to spend money on them then I would recommend evaluating yourself, maybe even seek help. If you're convinced of your own sanity though you might wanna consider not giving your money to the ceo's and shareholders of a company who aim to stockpile it to attract more money and more more more until it's amounted to all the possible infinite money and consider donating it for a guaranteed chance of doing good instead a random one of some digital junk.
answer me this question: if no one should ever have any reason to buy "time savers" why are they in the game?
they still have time savers in the form of "in-game resources for fun bux" though:
Dunno. Maybe they want to feel like they are playing a video game without actually playing the video game?
Like I said in the post you quoted 'I don't know why people buy these things. But people do"
And as someone who has actually played the video game and a bunch of ubisoft's single player games with MTX, they all feel half assed and thrown in to potentially get an extra buck instead of the "malicous, predatory money gauging scheme" people are trying to portray it as.
I saw the posts they were making and wasn't impressed, but it's kind of pathetic to look through someone's post history for a gotcha. Regardless, you can speculate on sound logic, but it's ultimately still just speculation.
I mean it may not be significant but depending on the goal they may make changes..
Also monetisation model is absolutely chosen at the start unless your an indie. Let's drop that nonsense. Tell me a single commercial industry that does not choose the monetisation model of it's product at the very begining. These are companies their goal is making money, only incompetant companies enter into a project without having determined how they're going to monitise the output.
Statement A is a misquote. I said that implying Ubisoft pivoted to RPG mechanics in AC so they could monetize it more is tin foil hattery. The only new mtx That's in Odyssey instead of say, Black Flag is an exp booster. Everything else is the same. Mounts, weapons, armor, in game currency.
Statement B, was certainly cheeky, but you would be horrible as a lawyer
I don't mind buying in-game content at all. I do it all the time.
I do mind buying loot boxes. I don't want RNG as part of my decision-making process. Show me what it is and show me the price. I'll make a decision from there. Don't insult me with RNG.
I do mind buying loot boxes. I don't want RNG as part of my decision-making process. Show me what it is and show me the price. I'll make a decision from there. Don't insult me with RNG.
I played Odyssey after hearing about the controversy. Tapped out after 70 hours or so, but the level cap and still had 1/3 map untouched and loads of stuff left to do.
If Ubisofts implementation of micro transactions is invasive and bad, I can't wait till he moves on to EA.
If Ubisofts implementation of micro transactions is invasive and bad, I can't wait till he moves on to EA.
Pretty much.
I think it's also hilarious when you consider that AC:O has a joke in it that pokes fun at other companies that have MTX and loot boxes.
Sorry I should have said "where it didn't even have XP based mtx."actually it did have time saver microtransactions:
And now that I recall I only came to know about them after I finished the game, because of how unintrusive and hidden away they were.
I genuinely don't understand this either. I have never heard of anyone playing a game like Skyrim or Witcher 3 going "I can't believe I have to play side missions, I just want to play the main quest"
Is it because AC transitioned from an action adventure game into an action RPG and people can't get behind that change?
actually it did have time saver microtransactions:
I think its indicative of how nothing the MTX's are in assassins creed if people literally had no idea they were even there. Black Flag and AC3 had MTX, but people barely knew.
While I agree that MTX can break a game, I think we shoud point the guns to the reals culprits.
Odyssey is perfectly balanced to work without Xp Boosts, the game have tons and tons of content, and the post-launch support is excelent.
Ubisoft is not the villain here.
Welcome to...RPGs in general? If anything they were a lot more harsh back in the day.
Well joke's on them. I didn't buy Assassin's Creed Odyssey in the first place. No $60 and no mtx from me.
I would have happily bought ASO at release if it was a 20 hour game. But I'm not buying a 100 hour game and then paying extra to get the chance to make it a 50 hour game. Fuck that noise.
And that's the thing with these threads. They're never starting out with "MAN I love paying extra for these games so you don't have to and get all the stuff for free. Don't thank me because I love doing it!"
They're always starting with "hey I didn't notice the microtransactions so you should be fine with them!". Which is one small step, or, judging by your post, not even an actual step, away from saying "hey fuck you mister married with children man, why don't you pay extra so I get stuff for free."
Well, excuse me for not playing along with this game. You and Ubisoft can go along with your spending war, where your extra spending means bigger budgets means more need for extra spending means bigger budgets, until one or both of you goes bankrupt. Meanwhile, I'll be out there supporting the more sustainable competition, with indeed more modest budgets and smaller games with less feature creep.
So last time this topic came up I actually cracked open Ubisoft's books since they are all public. Here's what I posted back then but I didn't get a response:
Anyone have thoughts on that?
Anyone have thoughts on that?
Context is important my man. Access to missions isnt locked behind red orb acquisition, and the impact of MTX's existence on gameplay balance isnt known yet as the game isnt out, with demo impressions so far stating that literally nothing has changed from previous instalments (except for the addition of some super expensive bonus thingy that doesnt impact gameplay itself). I get what youre saying, its trendy to hate on Asscreed while defending similar decisions in games people like, but in Ubi's case its pretty blatant how the whole "economy" rolls. You gotta pick your battles.
someone never played a jrpg. bruh even in pokemon you can't just go to the gyms, yknow.
False, the side quests are mandatory either way. Welcome to RPGs I guess
I hope when he has his chat with Jason Schreier, Jason can point out that Yong is a bad journalist. His choice of words is always the worst kind of sensational, stirring of the pot that you can make even if that's what he personally thinks. Good journalists may have an agenda or not but they present their findings impartially and then draw conclusions from it, and they should try not to be hyperbolic.
Hell even when I was a kid playing pokemon I understood I needed to grind to get past gym leaders and the elite 4. Honestly, I don't think people are mad about the idea of grinding. People are mad that ubisoft gave people the ability to pay to make grinding easier... when grinding in AC:O is already easy.
WTF is this.
Why does it sound like you feel personally attacked by the idea that Ubisoft made a 100 hour game and someone dared to like it?
Assassin's Creed Odyssey offers a lot of value for $60 without spending a penny more. We're in a golden age of gaming -- Games are cheaper than ever (in the 90s, games cost about $100 after considering inflation) and offer much vaster experiences with much greater scope.
For Honor has also been really good about MTX in the sense that you don't ever need to spend a dime on it. Just doing the daily quests I have lots of steel to buy goodies fairly regularly. You can also buy the new heroes for steel.
Ubisoft is a positive example of a massive publicly traded game company generally doing things right by people. Turn your ire to Activision and EA who actually are evil
For Honor has also been really good about MTX in the sense that you don't ever need to spend a dime on it. Just doing the daily quests I have lots of steel to buy goodies fairly regularly. You can also buy the new heroes for steel.
Ubisoft is a positive example of a massive publicly traded game company generally doing things right by people. Turn your ire to Activision and EA who actually are evil
And yet gamers are buying more games than ever before and successful games are selling more than previous entries in their respective series. There are ways for companies to expand without being exploitative.