It's pretty on-point for microtransactions. Just cosmetic things, but hey, you gotta trash The Division somehow.
Microtransactions in paid games are the ultimate sin.
Didn't Dead Space 3 have really bad MTs too? I didn't play it because of them on principle but I heard they were really bad.
It's just fucking cosmetic items who gives a shit
[QUOTE=GentlemanLexi;51964844]but hey, you gotta trash The Division somehow.[/QUOTE]
well its not like pcgamer is known for trashing the division on the regular. maybe james davenport is just retarded. or ubi's checks stopped coming in.
[QUOTE=geel9;51965161]It's just fucking cosmetic items who gives a shit[/QUOTE]
The only thing I can think of is that since the Division is an objectively bad game that has a much larger problem than cosmetics, it just illustrates how out of touch the devs are with the actual problems that exist in the game and it comes off as just another cash grab for a shitty game, basically the[I] timing[/I] is really bad. [I]HOWEVER[/I], on the level that they are just cosmetic MTs, they aren't inherently bad imo.
[QUOTE=bloboo;51965225]I disagree on it being an objectively bad game, its just really flawed. Really though the microtransactions are awful considering you get the most unsubstantial things for like $2. Especially considering all the cosmetics currently in the game are like, 10 different models per category (6 of em) and a metric assfuckage of reskins, I think the microtransactions are awful cause they don't add anything new, just more lame fuckin pants and shit that you won't be able to tell apart from the 800 other pants you have. If the microtransactions added actually cool shit like say for example thighpads or some big superpauldrons or other shit that actually looked different I wouldnt mind but as it stands the microtransactions are just a thing that were added in because they had to, so they threw in some lame ass faction gear and called it a day.[/QUOTE]
Its one of the things that confused me. Since the setting is a realistic 201x New York City in the winter, there's really not many clothes that they could add that look fitting while looking unique. Additionally, you're generally not going to be paying attention to peoples' looks since you don't really see many people around unless you're shooting them, and since all these clothes are so common in real life it's not like people are going to stop and go, "oh, that looks cool." Furthermore, most of the clothes have similar color schemes, with few vivid/warm colors, so a lot of the details between different peoples' clothes are muddled and not distinct. I don't really see the point of buying the clothes, the unique emotes and weapon skins make more sense, but you can get a lot of weapon skins with in game currency (for cheap), and I mean, who really thinks multiple dollars for one emote is worth it?
[QUOTE=geel9;51965161]It's just fucking cosmetic items who gives a shit[/QUOTE]
..........It starts as insignificant cosmetics. Eventually sales of cosmetics slow down or stop. Then they break out with the stuff that gives some kind of an in game edge. To "encourage" sales of such things, they are made in a way that they are superior to similar items found in game, be it no level/class restriction to use, a better stat buff than the lootable version or both. Basically EVERY game that started selling cosmetics for real money ended up doing this.
Also, this IS a Ubisoft game and in the past they've sold the ability to get the best possible gear from the get go. It's not out the the realm of possibility that they would do it again.
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;51965126]Microtransactions in paid games are the ultimate sin.[/QUOTE]
eh if the game has a bunch of free post launch content like maps and characters and stuff i'm alright with it
[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;51965172]The only thing I can think of is that since the Division is an [B]objectively bad game[/B] that has a much larger problem than cosmetics, it just illustrates how out of touch the devs are with the actual problems that exist in the game and it comes off as just another cash grab for a shitty game, basically the[I] timing[/I] is really bad. [I]HOWEVER[/I], on the level that they are just cosmetic MTs, they aren't inherently bad imo.[/QUOTE]
The Divsion was bad on release. But ever since patch 1.4 the game has been really solid. And the Survival expansion is really good. There's a reason why it has a sizeable playerbase and why it tops the Steam charts every time it goes on sale.
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;51965126]Microtransactions in paid games are the ultimate sin.[/QUOTE]
No, microtransactions in $60 paid games, with a season pass, with preorder content, in a [I]singleplayer game[/I] are the ultimate sin.
I can live with Rainbow Six Siege or CSGO's microtransactions but get that shit right out of my Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.
[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;51965140]Didn't Dead Space 3 have really bad MTs too? I didn't play it because of them on principle but I heard they were really bad.[/QUOTE]
Dead Space 3's weren't anywhere near as bad as people were making out. Bad in principle, but all you could gain from it was reducing the challenge of a single player/coop game, if anything you only lose out by using them since it could make the game too easy. It had weapons and suits as pre-order/promotional bonuses, but they were cosmetic and again, made you way too powerful early-game. If there were content locked behind a paywall ie weapons that function differently than what you can find/craft, I'd understand the outrage, but as far as its microtransactions go pretty much all you could do was buy more resources to craft parts you'd already unlocked.
[QUOTE=ejonkou;51965678]The Divsion was bad on release. But ever since patch 1.4 the game has been really solid. And the Survival expansion is really good. There's a reason why it has a sizeable playerbase and why it tops the Steam charts every time it goes on sale.[/QUOTE]
I agree but regarding the community, don't go to the subreddit. It's one of the worst subreddits I've seen for a video game, and there's always a post that's just ranting about the game and comparing it to others, with the post being marked as "CRITICAL DISCUSSION" and just a lot of preaching to the choir.
I've played it since launch and I enjoyed it for what it was. People just need to understand that Ubisoft don't want to keep funding the game since it's on its last legs at this point.
Worst part is people screaming DEAD GAME, no shit it's a dying game, they're calling it quits after Year 2. Best thing they could do, IMO.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51965887]Dead Space 3's weren't anywhere near as bad as people were making out. Bad in principle, but all you could gain from it was reducing the challenge of a single player/coop game, if anything you only lose out by using them since it could make the game too easy. It had weapons and suits as pre-order/promotional bonuses, but they were cosmetic and again, made you way too powerful early-game. If there were content locked behind a paywall ie weapons that function differently than what you can find/craft, I'd understand the outrage, but as far as its microtransactions go pretty much all you could do was buy more resources to craft parts you'd already unlocked.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is you can very easily use cheat engine to hack the values of the resources meaning you quite literally could just get infinite resources instead of paying for DLC to get more
[QUOTE=SteakStyles;51965377]..........It starts as insignificant cosmetics. Eventually sales of cosmetics slow down or stop. Then they break out with the stuff that gives some kind of an in game edge. To "encourage" sales of such things, they are made in a way that they are superior to similar items found in game, be it no level/class restriction to use, a better stat buff than the lootable version or both. Basically EVERY game that started selling cosmetics for real money ended up doing this.
Also, this IS a Ubisoft game and in the past they've sold the ability to get the best possible gear from the get go. It's not out the the realm of possibility that they would do it again.[/QUOTE]
This sounds like a whole lot of speculation with actually no evidence.
Examples of games that didn't do this: Team Fortress 2, CS:GO, Dota 2
This is basically racial profiling as applied to games.
[QUOTE=SteakStyles;51965377]..........It starts as insignificant cosmetics. Eventually sales of cosmetics slow down or stop. Then they break out with the stuff that gives some kind of an in game edge. To "encourage" sales of such things, they are made in a way that they are superior to similar items found in game, be it no level/class restriction to use, a better stat buff than the lootable version or both. Basically EVERY game that started selling cosmetics for real money ended up doing this.
Also, this IS a Ubisoft game and in the past they've sold the ability to get the best possible gear from the get go. It's not out the the realm of possibility that they would do it again.[/QUOTE]
Care to give any actual evidence for these claims?
[QUOTE=geel9;51965161]It's just fucking cosmetic items who gives a shit[/QUOTE]
it's a fifty fucking dollar game
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51965887]Dead Space 3's weren't anywhere near as bad as people were making out. Bad in principle, but all you could gain from it was reducing the challenge of a single player/coop game, if anything you only lose out by using them since it could make the game too easy. It had weapons and suits as pre-order/promotional bonuses, but they were cosmetic and again, made you way too powerful early-game. If there were content locked behind a paywall ie weapons that function differently than what you can find/craft, I'd understand the outrage, but as far as its microtransactions go pretty much all you could do was buy more resources to craft parts you'd already unlocked.[/QUOTE]
If they were so optional and ignorable then why were they in a $60 game to begin with? They had no purpose being there other than for greedy executives wanting to squeeze even more money out of the game. So yes, I think they were[I] that[/I] bad.
Also, if they were "cosmetic", how would they make you "way too powerful early-game"? That's literally pay to win what you described that has absolutely no purpose in its existence.
[editline]16th March 2017[/editline]
The fact that people are completely okay with microtransactions in their fully-priced games and handwaving them off as "just cosmetic" is frankly absurd. [B]They should not be there to begin with.[/B]
[QUOTE=ThatSprite;51968836]If they were so optional and ignorable then why were they in a $60 game to begin with? They had no purpose being there other than for greedy executives wanting to squeeze even more money out of the game. So yes, I think they were[I] that[/I] bad.
Also, if they were "cosmetic", how would they make you "way too powerful early-game"? That's literally pay to win what you described that has absolutely no purpose in its existence.
[editline]16th March 2017[/editline]
The fact that people are completely okay with microtransactions in their fully-priced games and handwaving them off as "just cosmetic" is frankly absurd. [B]They should not be there to begin with.[/B][/QUOTE]
But it's just cosmetic, nobody is forcing you to buy it. You are not set-back for not buying cosmetics, and the developers are willing to give cosmetics to those people who feel fine with buying those cosmetics.
There is no issue with cosmetics, just people saying "grr, damn those devs making money!"
I don't care about microtransactions because it's not meant for me. I have no reason to care for them, so I don't care about them.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51968715]it's a fifty fucking dollar game[/QUOTE]
It's a fifty dollar game that's been out for a year and has seen several deep discounts. The season pass was a disappointment to many, yes, but the fact that they want to fund future development with purely cosmetic items doesn't bug me in the slightest.
This is better than another season pass, better than selling gameplay-affecting items, and better than abandoning the game. I can see people being salty about it, sure, but "the worst example of microtransactions?" Not even close.
There are plenty of reasons to be mad at Massive/Ubisoft, but this is one of the less valid ones.
[QUOTE=GentlemanLexi;51969307]But it's just cosmetic, nobody is forcing you to buy it. You are not set-back for not buying cosmetics, and the developers are willing to give cosmetics to those people who feel fine with buying those cosmetics.
There is no issue with cosmetics, just people saying "grr, damn those devs making money!"
I don't care about microtransactions because it's not meant for me. I have no reason to care for them, so I don't care about them.[/QUOTE]
I am already paying $60 for the game. Why are there microtransactions and adverts for them plastered all over the game when I already paid for the god damn game? Feel free to dismiss it with your strawman of me being angry that developers DARE make money when they already do so over their $60 game with development time shaved off of it for pointless microtransaction systems that have no right nor purpose to exist in the first place.
[editline]16th March 2017[/editline]
Can you actually provide any sort of reason for why those systems are in $60 games or is it "I don't buy them so it's not my problem"?
I have no problem with cosmetic micro-transactions but the division takes the piss. Some of the emotes cost as much at £6 with no other way to actually get the premium currency. Who is realistically going to buy those
[QUOTE=ThatSprite;51969746]I am already paying $60 for the game. Why are there microtransactions and adverts for them plastered all over the game when I already paid for the god damn game? Feel free to dismiss it with your strawman of me being angry that developers DARE make money when they already do so over their $60 game with development time shaved off of it for pointless microtransaction systems that have no right nor purpose to exist in the first place.
[editline]16th March 2017[/editline]
Can you actually provide any sort of reason for why those systems are in $60 games or is it "I don't buy them so it's not my problem"?[/QUOTE]
Oh no people can buy things that do absolutely nothing
The unrepentant horror
[QUOTE=ThatSprite;51969746]I am already paying $60 for the game. Why are there microtransactions and adverts for them plastered all over the game when I already paid for the god damn game? Feel free to dismiss it with your strawman of me being angry that developers DARE make money when they already do so over their $60 game with development time shaved off of it for pointless microtransaction systems that have no right nor purpose to exist in the first place.
[editline]16th March 2017[/editline]
Can you actually provide any sort of reason for why those systems are in $60 games or is it "I don't buy them so it's not my problem"?[/QUOTE]
says that while having an overwatch avatar, which does the same thing. (and while its a 40$ game, it did advertise as being a 60$ game as you had to unselect the special edition)
[QUOTE=Naught;51970168]says that while having an overwatch avatar, which does the same thing. (and while its a 40$ game, it did advertise as being a 60$ game as you had to unselect the special edition)[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how this makes his point any less valid
[QUOTE=NitronikALT;51970177]I fail to see how this makes his point any less valid[/QUOTE]
idk but it's been proven that once the money runs out from day 1 sales, devs need another source of income, regardless of him saying that its a strawman tactic. I'd rather they do that shit through cosmetics than going the EA route and giving out lootboxes that give in game advantages. Especially since people want games that last for years and years, but also don't want the devs to get any more money out of it beside the initial purchase. It doesn't make any real sense.
[QUOTE=Naught;51970193]idk but it's been proven that once the money runs out from day 1 sales, devs need another source of income, regardless of him saying that its a strawman tactic. I'd rather they do that shit through cosmetics than going the EA route and giving out lootboxes that give in game advantages. Especially since people want games that last for years and years, but also don't want the devs to get any more money out of it beside the initial purchase. It doesn't make any real sense.[/QUOTE]
Base price being 60$ (which is NOT irrelevant, even with a decent income) and the offer being kinda bad (1 to 5$ for barely visible patterns and flat recolours) are the two major issues here.
Just to go back on Overwatch, at least there are skins that completely alter your look at a decent price, rather than just recolouring your trousers in neon orange for 3$
[QUOTE=Naught;51970168]says that while having an overwatch avatar, which does the same thing. (and while its a 40$ game, it did advertise as being a 60$ game as you had to unselect the special edition)[/QUOTE]
Excellent ad hominem. Please point out where I said I approve of Overwatch's microtransactions.
[editline]16th March 2017[/editline]
(I don't.)
[QUOTE=ThatSprite;51969746]I am already paying $60 for the game. Why are there microtransactions and adverts for them plastered all over the game when I already paid for the god damn game? Feel free to dismiss it with your strawman of me being angry that developers DARE make money when they already do so over their $60 game with development time shaved off of it for pointless microtransaction systems that have no right nor purpose to exist in the first place.
[editline]16th March 2017[/editline]
Can you actually provide any sort of reason for why those systems are in $60 games or is it "I don't buy them so it's not my problem"?[/QUOTE]
For The Division, there are legit only a couple of advertisements for them. There's an extra window on the main menu that shows what kind of cosmetics they're selling, along with a window that leads into the Premium Store. It's barely noticeable, unless this is what you mean by plastered all over the game being 2 small windows.
Also as I said, it's there for people who want to buy cosmetics and have cash to splash.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
