Please don't let micro transactions or loot boxes ruin borderlands 3

(Evo4g63t) #224

If micro transactions are introduced (most likely since 2k is a excess money grubbing publisher look no further than nba 2k18 for that or their parent company Take Two, you know the ones that pretty much turned micro transactions into a must purchase to buy anything of value in GTA V) I only request that they do it similar to ubisoft’s Far Cry 5:

  • Cosmetics only with the all of them and still making it achievable in game with enough grinding.
  • Absolutely no purchasing of items that gives the player an advantage in game play.

Unfortunately I think 2k/Take Two have more of an influence with micro transactions than the developer does.

I mean optimally I’d like zero micro transactions because achieving items in game is far more enjoyable than buying them but I know because there is a successful market for it its not realistic.

This is by far going to be the single biggest factor if I buy this game or not. I will never buy a 60 dollar game (at least 90 with DLC) that pretends its a free mobile market game.

(What does it all mean!?) #225

Take 2 has stated that microtransactions will be a part of every game they make going forward. Therefore the only question is what form they will take. Borderlands 2 was heavy on the paid DLC (2 level cap expansions, 4 large DLC’s, 5 small DLC’s) so we can expect more of that plus likely many more skins and costumes that will only be available via paid DLC (like BL2). That’s minimum because that was what we had before. So the only question is what more they will add along these lines because publishers always go for more. We can likely expect several tiers of pre-order things with various things, including weapons and then…who knows… Pitchford has stated that there will not be paid loot boxes for gear, but that’s vague as publishers are moving away from this idea and into other areas that aren’t as controversial yet. I hope I’m wrong, but likely it’s going to be bad and uncomfortable, the only question is how bad and how uncomfortable and where you draw your personal line regarding a game you want to play (likely with your friends) versus your disgust at the dishonest practices of this particular sector of the entertainment industry that wants to pretend it’s different than any other area of the entertainment industry and therefore these practices are acceptable.

(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW) #226

Paying for a good DLC is not a microtransaction. It has to be bought and installed. As long as they don’t change the formula AT ALL, i’ll be happy. 10 bucks for a character, 15/20 for a dlc. skins as dlc. most people don’t realize bl2 had a shitton of skins that you couldn’t get in game, only as dollar dlc. and that’s just fine.

(What does it all mean!?) #227

The term microtransactions has become fairly meaningless anyway, at what point is it macro? I agree, if it’s the same as BL2, that’s the best we can expect, though I really dislike the fact they charge for additional characters. Again, that’s the best we can expect, but recall that publishers always want to take it farther so I think it’ll be worse in some aspect, though hopefully it won’t be one that affects gameplay. The dollar a skin seemed irritating given how much they charge for all the other DLC, but if that’s the worse thing we’ll be in great shape…

(Guajiro Pandoreño) #228

If the game didn’t already come with four, charging for additional ones (as it would hardly be a RPG if there was only one class) might be weird.

(Is this thing on?) #229

Four is a good number for the base game, since it fits nicely with up to four-player local co-op. I don’t mind paying for extra characters beyond the base game (just as we did with BL2 and TPS), as long as there are options around bundles etc.

(Evo4g63t) #230

micro transactions don’t necessarily mean just the price it can also refer to the reward of the purchase (micro) in the overall scope of the game. At least in my opinion.

(Evo4g63t) #231

I think one issue to consider with borderlands is the “bragging rights” of getting that special loot. It’s certainly not going to be that great of an accomplishment if the specific loot can just be paid for.

I think in this aspect it makes the game less fun because now people can just ask mommy and daddy for money and get that loot.

(obiwan1525) #232

I pray that they don’t add microtransactions. That’s what ruined Star Wars, and Metal Gear for me (I mean, you have to pay $10 in Metal Gear Survive just to create a second save slot!).

(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW) #233

Of course there will be. As skins. Just like BL2. Which had about 10000 skin packs for $1 each if you knew where to look.

(LootHunter_twitch) #234

There are many types of micro transactions. You should be specific in what your are arguing about. Millions of people buy cosmetics and love buying them in many games. They will stay in gaming for ever.

Random role Loot Boxes are another issue. Pay to win is another issue.

Besides, Star Wars Battlefront is an excellent game. It hasn’t been ‘ruined’.

(What does it all mean!?) #235

Who “loves” buying cosmetics in full price games? People feel compelled to pay for them because they want to look cool and/or are completionists who want everything…Nobody wants to, just a greedy tactic by developers to nickel and dime people after they’ve already bought their product. They will stay in gaming forever because people have accepted this garbage and hope for games like BL2 where it’s irritating but not game breaking.

(Guajiro Pandoreño) #236

Are you aware of everyone’s motivations/desires?

Is “love” a requirement for something to be purchased?

Are peoples’ desires for wanting to look cool or to be a completionist inherently bad?

Is making a profit on a product an unacceptable motivation for a business?

Is there a problem with so many people happily buying cosmetic items in a video game, even if it is for a reason with which you don’t agree?

What exactly is the source of your irritation for this sort of thing?

(What does it all mean!?) #237

I don’t claim to know everyone’s motivation, I am questioning people claiming folks are “happily” and “loving to” have to pay more for something they already bought or a service they are already paying for…

(Guajiro Pandoreño) #238

I happily bought a Gaige skin pack for the sole reason that I liked the way it looked. I’ve been tempted to buy all the others because I feel that I’ve gotten way more than expected out of the game as a way of saying thanks, but wouldn’t actually equip any of them.

Another game with tons of cosmetics (as another data point): Team Fortress 2. I bought the Scouts “Deep Fried Desire” taunt because it makes me laugh every time I see it.

It sounds like you think all these things should be included in the regular game? Both of these games, as examples, come with plenty of free (and otherwise obtainable within the game) cosmetics. That they sell additional ones outside of the regular game is the issue, no?

(What does it all mean!?) #239

Yes, I believe when you buy a game, you should get the things that are in the game. They don’t have to be easy to obtain, but that’s really cool when you can earn stuff like the Vermi skins for doing something really hard…I would love to have all the Maya heads/skins in the game as that’s my favorite character and I’m a completionist, but I refuse to pay more for a game I’ve already bought twice (once for PS3 including buying all the DLC separately and once for PS4).

TF2 is different as I assume you are talking about the F2P version and not the original Orange Box version (I haven’t played either fwiw, though I did buy the Orange box a long time ago to play Portal). F2P is a different model.

(Is this thing on?) #240

I see where you’re coming from: you’re equating the purchase of a licence to play the game with the full extent of the code and resources actually installed on your game platform to play that game. But these things cease to be the same when you have paid cosmetic extras in a co-op game with what is effectively an in-game store (the New-U station, where you can see the premium heads and skins from the packs).

Let me put it this way: suppose you are responsible for developing such a game. It’s first-person only, so the main player benefit of having cosmetic extras (premium heads and skins which are more than simply a palette swap on the same model) is that they are seen by other players in the game. What do you do? Do you:

a) not include those resources, but force a download of them for every co-op partner who doesn’t have them whenever their partner joins their game

b) not include them and have the character ‘wearing’ the premium head/skin show up in their default outfit for the co-op partners (defeats the point somewhat)

c) include the resources in the download so they can be displayed in the co-op partners game, but leave them locked for individual use behind a DRM licence

In BL2 and TPS, Gearbox chose to use option c. They did something similar with the headhunter packs: for ease of distribution, they bundled some of them together as a single download, but sold them as separate licences. This bent a few people out of shape, because they felt the same way you did: they’d paid, downloaded code, but could only use half that code. But it wasn’t the code they bought; it was a licence to use part of the code.

And if you think about using option b, this means that if you want to see what a premium head/skin pack looks like, you’d either have to go to a web site or wait for the resources to temporarily download to your system whenever you tried to view then in the New-U.

In a way, it’s no different to buying any software package on physical media: you get the means to use the software, and a licence to use it. The system used in BL2, TPS, Battleborn, and many other games is simply an extension of this concept.

I understand if you don’t like that model of distribution, but practically speaking what other options are there? The only alternatives I can see are to include everything and then either raise the base price (painful) or sell the game as a subscription. (Or go with the full F2P model, with everything that entails.)

As things stand, I’m personally quite happy with the current model - stuff works, if I co-op with someone who uses premium cosmetics we both get to see them, and I can pay for as much or as little of such things as I like.

(What does it all mean!?) #241

edited for brevity as many of my original statements were redundant on a second read through

We disagree on this clearly, I stand by that when you buy something, you should have it and that paid cosmetic extras or anything else that’s not significant additional game content should not be part of full price games. The fact that we as gamers are haggling over details shows the extent to which the major developers have successfully moved the goalposts into thinking any of this is ok. All of your options and reasoning is predicated on the fact this practice is ok (additional paid non game content in full price games), which is what I strenuously disagree with. I would go for choice D which some games still do, everything in the game you paid for is possible to be earned in the game.

(Is this thing on?) #242

What you are buying is what’s set out in the product description. As long as publishers are clear in that description, I’m honestly not seeing a problem.

(What does it all mean!?) #243

Like I said, we disagree on whether paid cosmetic extras should be in full price games so everything related to that that we disagree on follows from that.