I saw the news this morning that Shadow of War's developer, Monolith Productions, will be removing microtransactions from the game. Here's their quote.
"The core promise of the Nemesis System is the ability to build relationships with your personal allies and enemies in a dynamic open world,” Monolith said. “While purchasing Orcs in the Market is more immediate and provides additional player options, we have come to realize that providing this choice risked undermining the heart of our game, the Nemesis System."
Shadow of War came out in SEPTEMBER 2017! That was over SIX MONTHS ago, and Monolith Productions is just now coming to the realization that they should remove a system which was, in their own words, undermining the HEART of their game.
Only a few weeks ago, EA finally patched Star Wars Battlefront 2 to put back in the systems completely removed on DAY ONE of the game's launch back in NOVEMBER 2017!
First, why are you taking six months to make these crucial changes to games with a shelf life of nearly that amount of time?
Second, why did it even have to happen in the first place?
This is not a discussion or critique on loot boxes or microtransactions. Video game companies being reactive is an issue we see across the board. Whether it's taking forever to fix something that was bad, or taking forever to do something that's good, companies in this industry generally fail to have the vision and forethought necessary to make a proactive GOOD decision.
Ever wonder why indie titles often capture the hearts and minds of players? Wonder why the smaller games are often the ones to start trends? It's because they're proactive in their approach to what players actually want. The developer, in many cases a single person, comes up with a good idea he or she thinks will be fun, and makes it into a game.
I'd like to see companies be more proactive with customer-first service, fun-first gameplay & features, and common-sense decision making throughout. We'd have a lot more game diversity & probably see more leaps forward with new, fun, and interesting ideas instead of having to chase our tails for six months reacting to every good or bad idea after it happens.
Yesterday’s posts about DLC can really be further clarified by looking at value/price positioning. A few basic ones include:
Before we go further, I want to quote one of the comments from yesterday. This is from a long-time poster named Shutter, who I really appreciate being one of our regular readers.
As someone who makes/sells games, here’s my question: If you don’t want us to stop putting out DLC, would you rather have the base game priced at $100, or for us to go back to Xbox/PS2 graphics and fire half the studio? Because those are the options without doing DLC.
DLC and loot crates exist because the current base game pricepoint doesn’t keep dev studios solvent for the non-CoDs/GTAs of the world. Yes it’s meant to get your money, but so is selling the game in the first place.
And as a gamer I’ll say that DLC is good and lets me play what I want at a price closer to where I actually value it. There are plenty of games that I’d like to experience but I don’t want to 100% (Hi Assassin’s Creed). DLC lets me play the game for the 10-20 hours that I care about, but not have to subsidize the people who are sinking 100 hours into the game to find every collectible.
I’ll also add, I’m perfectly happy for people not to buy the DLC attached to games I work on, if people quit buying it, we’d quit making it. But for all the bitching about DLC, the reality is that there’s a solid chunk of people who want this stuff and will buy an incredible amount of it, and they’re subsidizing the base game dev for the rest of us.
I really like this comment because it opens up the discussion for these value propositions. I’m going to use these value/price points in a slightly different way than usual since these are typically used to compare an offering to the competition or the market. I’m going to use them to compare to their base games. It’s not perfect, but it’ll do well enough to illustrate my point.
I usually have no problem paying ‘more for more’. That’s how I rationalize buying Apple products, BenQ monitors, TVs with the good Samsung panels, leather in my car, etc. I will pay more, but I expect more in return.
To me, this is what MMOs do in general. They cost more, but you (hopefully) get more. That’s why I’m okay with a subscription. As soon as that value/price position wavers, however, my subscription usually cancels.
For a single-player game, I’d pay $100 for a great game. Sure. My imagination starts to churn out all sorts of ideas like the next Elder Scrolls game or an even better Assassin’s Creed. I get lots of enjoyment out of those games and would likely pay $100 for the ones I knew would meet that ‘more for more’ value. If we pretend there’s no risk of a bad game, then Yes I would pay an additional $40 for a game with no DLC or mtx.
But since that risk exists, you’d be putting games into the same quadrant on the FCB matrix as an iPhone, and that radically alters my perspective. The purchase decision, for me, goes from almost-impulse to high-involvement. Do we want games in that category? This would make a fascinating blog post for another time.
This is where I always feel like the season pass is a scam. This is value/price trap where I always feel like the DLC never amounts to the value paid. The Destiny 2 DLC is mopped up in an hour or two. That was $20. That’s 1/3 the box price for the full game. Looking at it from that perspective, I just paid more for less. Reskins, pointless levels, and small maps. No thanks.
And to my point yesterday about DLC segmenting the community, the Destiny 2 DLC actually takes away features you paid for in the base game if you don’t also buy the DLC; That’s right, you can’t Prestige Raid, Nightfall, or do Trials without the DLC. They’re essentially locking you out of content you already bought. That, to me, is like ‘paying more for less’ to the nth degree or bottom line ‘more for the same’.
They want you to think it’s ‘More for Less’. They want you to think you’re getting more content for such a low price, but that’s a manipulation, not a correct way of evaluating the value/price position.
As many pointed out — and I agreed — in yesterday’s comments, there are good value offerings in the DLC space. These tend to be more EXPANSIONS than DLC, though. They’ve just been categorized as DLC due to the nature of their release being digital these days. In many ways, I lump WoW expansions into this category. Comparing their value/price to themselves, the expansions are ‘more for the same’ or ‘same for the same’. If ‘same’ was good for you, then celebrate.
Elder Scrolls DLC tends to be be a great value. Baldur’s Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal was awesome value. I remember thinking the Mass Effect 2 DLC was good. Assassin’s Creed 2 DLC was really good — probably the best of the franchise with Black Flag having a good installment. The gems are there.
This is where people like to jump in and say that I was generalizing yesterday. Yes, I was. Generally speaking, most DLC is hot garbage. Most DLC doesn’t fall into the positive quadrants. Most DLC falls into the negative areas. DLC is trending heavily toward a predatory practice — no, strike that, it’s already there. So when I say DLC is just as bad as loot boxes, I truly do believe it. They are both predatory by nature, rarely provide the value and positive emotion, and typically do not benefit the consumer.
Yesterday the UK Gambling Commission determined that loot boxes “where in-game items obtained via loot boxes are confined for use within the game and cannot be cashed out” are not a “licensable gambling activity”.
This means that the UK Gambling Commission has joined the ESRB in stating, for a completely separate reason, that loot boxes are not gambling. The ESRB’s reason (paraphrased) is that the player always receives in-game content regardless of whether it’s the thing they wanted.
I think the UK’s reasoning leaves too big of a hole and allows for someone to then push for pokemon, yugioh, baseball, magic the gathering, and so on, cards to be technically gambling, right? I mean, those items definitely have real world monetary value and can definitely be sold separately at a higher monetary value than the “gamble” placed on a $5 booster pack. But that really gets to the crux of this argument. It’s the spirit of the law that matters, not the letter of the law. And the spirit of the law in this case isn’t going to condemn pokemon and MTG to be gambling, just like it won’t win against loot boxes.
I find the entire situation fascinating because it’s putting gaming business models under a microscope. I like watching all sides squirm and present arguments. Regardless of what side you fall on the debate, it’s a great discussion.
Battlefront 2 came out today for those of us who paid $79.99 for the Elite Trooper Deluxe Edition. Graev asked me if I thought it was worth $20 for a 3 day headstart and a few in-game upgrades. When he put it like that, I’m not sure if it is or not, but heck I’m all in.
Tuesdays are a bad day for me to really game a lot. My wife and I both work from home, so it’s tough to coordinate who gets to use the main room for games when we’re both in the middle of working. That said, I was still able to get in 3 hours of play.
So, now we get to the highly dramatized and exaggerated terribleness of being able to do nothing in-game without either spending tons of money, or tons of time to unlock stuff, right?. Not exactly.
Let’s look at what I was able to do today in 3 hours.
Earning in-game credits seems fairly easy. There’s an arcade mode you can play which is a single-player thing where you do challenges and set scores for yourself. I played two of them for the Light Side and earned some minor rewards. I think if you min/max these you can do like 4 or 5 a day and maybe even earn enough to get a crate from them every day. In hindsight, I should have maxed out today.
You can also do achievement things (which I think are actually called Challenges) to earn more credits. Some even give you a crate. I think they’re worth paying attention to AFTER you’ve played 10 or so maps. You’ll find most unlock naturally.
I had a lot of fun playing the objective with a squad. I played entirely with randoms (my friends are busy buying loot crates in Overwatch) and we did okay. I think I’d like voice chat in-game. That would help organize, but you can stick with your squad anyway and earn double the “battle points” which means you can access neat things during battles.
I will be recording videos to show you guys a perspective on Battlefront 2 you won’t see much elsewhere — that of someone who enjoys the game and can utilize the crate system by playing the game, and not spending any money.
If anyone wants to get together and play, I’d love a squadmate.
Dare I say it... the changes are quite positive.
moon small list of insignificant changes. That's a major reversal on much of people's big complaints about players being able to drop tons of cash on loot crates and dominate on day one.
Bottom line, you'll still be able to benefit greatly from buying crates, but not until you've played a lot and have earned the ability to benefit from them.
That's a fair trade, in my opinion. Sure, I still don't like loot crates. I'd rather them not be in the game at all. But given what we were going to have, this is a really nice change.