no i don't but the fact it I can load up my ps4 right now and buy the game direct from the publisher and if a few people do that a month then money is being made.
Back when digital wasn't a thing they would just stop producing copies
Sticking it to the greedy publishers.
- Thread starter biron_w
- Start date
no i don't but the fact it I can load up my ps4 right now and buy the game direct from the publisher and if a few people do that a month then money is being made.
Back when digital wasn't a thing they would just stop producing copies
Caporegime
It would be akin to the US selling a few war planes to South Korea to help its national debt.
the whole point I am making is that there are still ways to make money on a game long after its out.
Caporegime
And the point i am making that they will never sell enough to make it up, not in in the console's life time, or in your life time, or in the this century.
it may not make more money. Whatever
However you don't see sony pushing loot boxes in single player games. Also they take risks which seemingly EA and others don't want to do.
If this was any other publisher they would have canned it and wrote it off as a loss
Caporegime
Nobody said single player games are dead.
If you go back to my original post, my whole point was that I am glad there are loot boxes, they make enough money out of those people who buy them to evens it out for the rest of us. This includes other games that don't have them to exists (if you want me to make it obviously clear what I meant).
That's it.
you may not have an issue with them being in single player games but a lot of people do.
At first I didn't mind ive played games for a while with them in but seeing how shadow of war played out I felt as if the game was designed with them in mind. It affected the end of the game. That's why I have an issue with them in single player games now.
this thread is about greedy publishers. Despite what they and others defending them say they don't need to make more and more profits each and every year (same as pretty much every big corporation) because they are too big to go bankrupt over night and a couple of badly selling games.
It wont be long until you buy a game and you get to the last boss or whatever and it comes up with a prompt saying "you must pay to unlock this content"
Caporegime
My perspective is that games should be £90-100 already.
Currently they are not, there may be the £5 bit of loot box here and there I can buy, even if there is something say £10 loot box I MUST buy, so what? I am still about £30 better off than they are if they were £90-100 as a starting price.
If they are £100 + loot boxes then I have a problem, when they are £50 and optional loot boxes, I don't have a problem. Like wise, I don't have a problem even if it is £50 game with a must buy £50 loot box, that would make the game to my expectation level.
And before you reply, that is my opinion, and my opinion only. You can disagree, but it doesn't mean it is wrong (of course it doesn't mean its right either), it is merely my opinion.
that's fair enough and I respect your opinion after reading that.
I just hope the day never comes where games do cost £100+ with loot boxes :O
Caporegime
That's why I am glad there are all these people spending thousands in DLC and loot boxes, they basically make the profit up for the rest of us that don't spend it, and keeping the publishers happy, keeping the base cost of a game low.
So I don't disagree with loot boxes, I embrace them, it's an avenue for them to make money in a way that I don't need to spend and get to enjoy my game.
p.s. Nintendo does it too, in the way of an Amiibo, I had to spend £12.99 to get a figure in order to get Epona, there is no other way to do it. I am fully aware how silly that is, but then that's my choice and you can finish the game without it.
The difference with them though is they are a physical collectable.
The only issues I had with Amiibos was the fact that Nintendo didn't produce a lot of them which made it hard to get hold of them.
There are a few I would like to get (and I dont own the games they are for) but I'm not paying the insane second hand prices for them
Caporegime
That's how they get to you, being a physical item, it is merely a piece of moulded plastic with a NFC inside. Doubt it cost £1 to make in mass quantities. Some of them are hard to get, but they make enough of them that they are not an investment so in the end it is still money down the drain.
The only saving grace is they can be used in many games, so the cost in a way is spread out, as they can be "reused" over and over.
Plus of course if you take the stance that you can pay £20 for a figurine that does nothing, or £12.99 for a little figure that does something in game. The point still stand that Nintendo does loot boxes too, disguised as Amiibo.
Here we go again, another problem with definitions
No, Nintendo do not do loot boxes. That is very clear.Loot boxes give you a chance of getting the item you want, which is an order of magnitude worse than being able to pay a fixed price for what you want.
I really dislike the amiibo system but with just a little thought on the subject anyone can clearly see why loot boxes are far worse.
Caporegime
Yes and no.
For example, some Link Amiibo in Zelda BOTW get you a Tunics, but it is random, sometimes you just get fish or meat or some arrows.
The point is, all these things are ways for them to make money from something that is tied to the game, more ways to get you to spend more. Like Mario Odyssey out this week, there is a pack with 3 Amiibos for sale. I bet a lot of people buy them with the game so more revenue. So these additions keeps the core game costs low, I have opted just for plain copy of Mario, and not the one with Amiibo.
Caporegime
Some are, the Epona one is an instance where you have to have that Amiibo to get Epona. Some other Amiibos are more generic with a specific item but it is random.
Which was absolutely not the developers fault. EA wrongly thought it would hurt sales of COD. But it had no chance competing against COD and BF.
I don't get this defending publishers and their sh*tty practices. I have no problem with loot crates or micro transactions if they're done RIGHT. But the way loot crates are going it is entirely the wrong way. Putting weapons, boosts or anything that affects the balance of a game behind an RNG system is just wrong. If they kept them cosmetic it would be fine but that's clearly not happening and it will only get worse if people keep supporting publishers when they do things like this. It is purely down to greed and doesn't benefit gamers in the slightest; it benefits publishers and their shareholders.
TitanFall 2 got things right. All new maps, weapons and Titans were free. All micro transactions were things where you knew exactly what you're buying. I can support that and I did in TFL2.
Caporegime
I "defend" them because they are going to get their money either way.
1 - They put the price of all the games at £90
2 - They keep the games at £50 and have add-ons
What do you prefer?