1st party XB1 games; $60 with added microtransactions

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Locutus_Picard (3975 posts) -

Forza 5 ($60), Ryse ($60) and Crimson Dragon ($20) are all offenders of having a full game purchase with a hybrid of F2P-microtransaction price-gouging. It saddens me too see the pitiful state gaming has become in in microsoft's vision.

$60 Forza 5: extra cars taken out of full game and sold as $50 season pass, plus microtransactions for cars and events

$60 Ryse: purchase gold for skills and perks (mainly progression gating)

$20 Crimson Dragon: purchase skill & loot packs (like mass effect 3) pay to get revived, game is a fucking terrible grind otherwise

Your thoughts?

#2 Edited by Jaysonguy (37409 posts) -

The fact you don't understand DLC makes you a poor choice to start this conversation.

Let someone else do it, you're in over your head.

#3 Edited by SinjinSmythe (789 posts) -

*opens up wallet* Yes please!!!!!

#4 Edited by shawn30 (4288 posts) -

Don't like, don't buy. Seems simple, really.

#5 Posted by Locutus_Picard (3975 posts) -

The fact you don't understand DLC makes you a poor choice to start this conversation.

Let someone else do it, you're in over your head.

Oh, I understand it. This is all day 1 DLC that's introducing an artificial grind. Make a game, lower droprates and mission rewards & bonusses, make buying said drops and loot via XBL store. This is affecting game design.

#6 Posted by PonchoTaco (1901 posts) -

PS3 already has this with the upcoming GT6. Sony started last generation with this.

#7 Posted by freedomfreak (38160 posts) -

How much does Resogun cost?

#8 Edited by heretrix (37246 posts) -

Don't be a clown. This isn't exclusive to any one platform.

#9 Posted by uninspiredcup (6823 posts) -

I predicted this ages ago. What the fuck do you think Titan is. Hey, world of warcraft made a shitload of money but MMO's failed on consoles. What do console kiddies like? Call Of Duty and Halo! Guys, lets combine world of warcraft and Halo! Charge 60 dollars then make them pay for other shit as well, the dolts! Easy moneys bro's.

Tis the future. Guess whats to blame as with all bad things in gaming? Consoles.

#10 Edited by jman1553 (1302 posts) -

>price per token<

1€ => 1ct / token

5€ => 1,53 ct / token

10€ => 1,74 ct / token (recommended ! )

20€ => 1,6 ct / token

50€ => 1,85 ct /token (Great Value !!! )

100€ => 1,25 ct /token

Normally the more you pay, the better of a deal it is. NOT WITH MICROSOFT!

#11 Posted by hoosier7 (3669 posts) -

Doesn't KI have some too?

I don't get why people are surprised, it was MS who pioneered all the DLC crap we have today so it was to be expected they'd lean on developers for the best money making scam going at the moment in microtransactions.

#12 Posted by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -

sadly if you haven't notice that every single fucking game is going that way...

@hoosier7 said:

Doesn't KI have some too?

I don't get why people are surprised, it was MS who pioneered all the DLC crap we have today so it was to be expected they'd lean on developers for the best money making scam going at the moment in microtransactions.

ki is f2p so thats fine,

expansion packs been around long time, they are called DLC now. micros been around for quite a while too f2p games was the one created that

#13 Edited by masiisam (5717 posts) -

@jman1553 said:

>price per token<

1€ => 1ct / token

5€ => 1,53 ct / token

10€ => 1,74 ct / token (recommended ! )

20€ => 1,6 ct / token

50€ => 1,85 ct /token (Great Value !!! )

100€ => 1,25 ct /token

Normally the more you pay, the better of a deal it is. NOT WITH MICROSOFT!

What i don't understand from that screen shot is:

It's different than the first screen shot which is full screen BTW and why did they make "Recommended" and "Great Value" in English when clearly its French across the rest of the screen.

When you break down the per unit cost the first screen you do get more "value" as you spend more.

It just seems weird why T10 would make a screen that looks so different when they can just plug in the new values and be done with it.

#14 Posted by hoosier7 (3669 posts) -

sadly if you haven't notice that every single fucking game is going that way...

@hoosier7 said:

Doesn't KI have some too?

I don't get why people are surprised, it was MS who pioneered all the DLC crap we have today so it was to be expected they'd lean on developers for the best money making scam going at the moment in microtransactions.

ki is f2p so thats fine,

expansion packs been around long time, they are called DLC now. micros been around for quite a while too f2p games was the one created that

It was quite a bit different with expansions though, they're usually more worthwhile as they're large enough to make big changes, e.g. to fix inherent gameplay flaws and bring entirely new aspects to the game. Civ 5 seems to be one of the only games still doing this and it's brilliant, you couldn't pay me to touch vanilla now, sadly i've never seen such improvements in the smaller doses of DLC we seem to get in most games these days. I mean maps didn't used to be paid DLC.

As you said with F2P it's fine (even then though you've got to avoid pay 2 win) but with full retail titles it's a different story. It's been far from every game going that way, there's only really a handful of big retail titles that have microtransactions (at least outside of cosmetics which isn't really an issue), 2/3 of MS' biggest titles having them is a pretty poor ratio and a bad jump. Hope we don't see the same in up coming releases.

Sony are no saints though, GT6 has them too i believe but i'm not sure what for? At least it's isolated to just that game with them though.

#15 Edited by Murderstyle75 (4163 posts) -

@k2theswiss: Yes. There have been expansions for a very long time however expansion packs were usually worth the price of admission. These Microtransactions aren't and "Micro"soft is the worst offender. Do you remember what happened when Epic games wanted all their Gears DLC to be free of charge just like their Unreal content? How about Valve being forced to charge for L4D content that's free on the PC? Hell. I got both games with all DLC for what Microsoft forces them to charge for one map pack.

#16 Posted by R3FURBISHED (10021 posts) -

Your thoughts?

this has been going on for years. Many, many years.

#17 Posted by xhawk27 (7076 posts) -

Now list all the FTP games on the PS4.

#18 Posted by tormentos (16425 posts) -

The fact you don't understand DLC makes you a poor choice to start this conversation.

Let someone else do it, you're in over your head.

Is so sad that some one defend this crap,not only this games are already $60 putting free to play payment methods make this a joke, + $50 dollars for a few more cars.?

MS is to greedy for their own good.

#19 Posted by xhawk27 (7076 posts) -

@Jaysonguy said:

The fact you don't understand DLC makes you a poor choice to start this conversation.

Let someone else do it, you're in over your head.

Is so sad that some one defend this crap,not only this games are already $60 putting free to play payment methods make this a joke, + $50 dollars for a few more cars.?

MS is to greedy for their own good.

You mean like paying for a GT demo. MS isn't charging $10 for a one new car. Don't forget that you have to pay to play Online gaming on the PS4 too.

#20 Posted by lundy86_4 (42648 posts) -

Games, or game?

#21 Edited by Locutus_Picard (3975 posts) -

@Locutus_Picard said:

Your thoughts?

this has been going on for years. Many, many years.

Doesn't make it OK. If all 1st party titles are going to include this, it does not bode well. This stuff used to be done by the likes of EA but starting a whole gen like this?

If a game has in-game currency you can buy with real currency, it should be free-2-play. Not this $60 + F2P microtransactions hybrid. Microsoft can fuck off.

#22 Edited by Merex760 (4280 posts) -

Thank you Microsoft.

#23 Edited by Locutus_Picard (3975 posts) -
@heretrix said:

Don't be a clown. This isn't exclusive to any one platform.

You're the clown for pointing fingers "bu-bu-but he did it too!" instead of actually trying to care about gaming.

#24 Posted by heretrix (37246 posts) -

@heretrix said:

Don't be a clown. This isn't exclusive to any one platform.

You're the clown for pointing fingers "bu-bu-but he did it too!" instead of actually trying to care about gaming.

Really? Oh well. I guess the truth doesn't matter then. Carry on.

#25 Posted by senses_fail_06 (6735 posts) -

Forza 5 is more like a $120 game. You get about half a game at launch.

#26 Posted by mems_1224 (45737 posts) -

Dont buy em. Crisis averted

#27 Posted by R3FURBISHED (10021 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED said:

@Locutus_Picard said:

Your thoughts?

this has been going on for years. Many, many years.

Doesn't make it OK. If all 1st party titles are going to include this, it does not bode well. This stuff used to be done by the likes of EA but starting a whole gen like this?

If a game has in-game currency you can buy with real currency, it should be free-2-play. Not this $60 + F2P microtransactions hybrid. Microsoft can fuck off.

Microsoft is the only video game company that uses microtransactions?

#28 Posted by foxhound_fox (86852 posts) -

This is the future of gaming. It allows developers to offer a broader variety of content and still make a good amount of revenue. Gone are the days of the $50 package deal. With FTP and cheap games with lots of addons (like KI), it will offer more people a chance to play more games, and still help generate revenue after the prices of games drops after the first 6 months.

#29 Edited by lamprey263 (22426 posts) -

I'm guessing tokens can be earned for free, but offered to people with no self control... I can honestly live with them making money off people with no self control. That's the basis of many microtransaction systems.

#30 Edited by Murderstyle75 (4163 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED:

Microsoft is the only console maker who uses them to extremes. Sony might have them too but they aren't using two season passes for a single title that still doesn't get you all the content. Their also not locking weapon skins on the disc while charging $45 to access them.

#31 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

Sad that people are so brain dead that they are defending this disgusting bullshit that is ruining gaming, the people who are defending it props only started gaming last gen. Remember the time, when you bought a game, and got a full game? Thanks a lot brain dead drones feeding the system!

#32 Posted by R3FURBISHED (10021 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED:

Microsoft is the only console maker who uses them to extremes. Sony might have them too but they aren't using two season passes for a single title that still doesn't get you all the content. Their also not locking weapon skins on the disc while charging $45 to access them.

The thing about micro-transactions, is that you don't have to buy them.

In regards to Killer Instinct, the design was such where if you want to buy the game you can but if you don't you don't have to. You get to test the game out for one entire character - everything in the game is open for that one character.

In regards to the skins...skins are entirely superfluous.

#33 Posted by Mr_Ditters (1905 posts) -

Sad that people are so brain dead that they are defending this disgusting bullshit that is ruining gaming, the people who are defending it props only started gaming last gen. Remember the time, when you bought a game, and got a full game? Thanks a lot brain dead drones feeding the system!

Dumb consumers are a curse on capitalism. Companies abuse their customers and the soulless lemmings ask for more. When the world economy collapses, maybe then people will understand that they should have been smarter with their money.

#34 Edited by Murderstyle75 (4163 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED:

Doesn't matter. The skins were still $45 and locked on the disc along with much of the Season Pass content. This is despite the fact that Epic games pushed for all Gears content to be free to begin with. Microsoft told them no. Their store, their rules. How can one defend that without reeking of fanboyism?

And the "you don't have to buy them" arguement is pathetic. Well guess what. I just didnt buy the console even though I spent thousands on the 360.

#35 Edited by Mr_Ditters (1905 posts) -

@Murderstyle75:

The extreme lengths that M$ went to nickle and dime me was the major reason I sold my 360 and bought a PS3. Its the main reason I will never own an Xbone. I'm not much of a fan of Sony either, but I have a holy hatred for MS's insulting business model which assumes customers are brain dead...and they are right most of the time.

#36 Edited by R3FURBISHED (10021 posts) -

@Murderstyle75 said:

@R3FURBISHED:

Doesn't matter. The skins were still $45 and locked on the disc along with much of the Season Pass content. This is despite the fact that Epic games pushed for all Gears content to be free to begin with. Microsoft told them no. Their store, their rules. How can one defend that without reeking of fanboyism?

Are you saying Killer Instinct Ultra Edition costs $45? Because its$40. In regards to Killer Instinct, its not micro transactions its just a model of selling the full game - buy what you want of the game.

  • Want one character? Buy that one character.
  • Want one accessory/skin? Buy that one accessory/skin.
  • Don't want anything else besides Jango? Don't buy anything.

Microsoft sells extra content at an extra price. You don't become one of the most successful companies ever by passing up on the opportunity of profit - especially when you know people will buy it.

And they did the exact same with Halo as well.

Ubisoft, Activision, EA, Take-Two, Sony, Nintendo do it as well.

#37 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4163 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED:

Umm I'm not talking about a shitty fighter clone made by a b list developer even though Rare wanted to make the game to begin with. I'm talking about Gears of War 3 weapon skins locked on the disc for $45 as well as much of the season pass content.

And if Sony has similar tactics, give me an example of insanely priced content and two or more season passes for first party games. And show me an example where a developer asked for their content to be free but were told no.

#38 Edited by R3FURBISHED (10021 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED:

Umm I'm not talking about a shitty fighter clone made by a b list developer even though Rare wanted to make the game to begin with. I'm talking about Gears of War 3 weapon skins locked on the disc for $45 as well as much of the season pass content.

And if Sony has similar tactics, give me an example of insanely priced content and two or more season passes for first party games. And show me an example where a developer asked for their content to be free but were told no.

I don't follow developers that closely other than Bungie - and frankly I don't care.

I don't give a flying fuck.

Unless you want to buy some extra content - micro transactions shouldn't concern you. I don't understand why the mere notion of micro transactions is so appalling to people.
And on that same page, if the content is worth the price to whomever is paying for the content, the fuck does it matter how much it costs?

Why does it matter if there is extra content people can buy? Let them. Who the fuck cars?

#39 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4163 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED:

That's a cop out because you don't have any other answer. Meanwhile Microsoft and Valves relationship deminisher because they forced a charge for the L4D stuff that was supposed to be free and is very much free on the PC.

They have screwed Telltale who wanted to sell The Walking Dead for $20 as a season pass. Xbox is the only platform that charges $25 for the game. Not even Apple stooped that low.

They screwed Just Add Water when they wouldn't allow Strangers Wraith on the XBLA because their price was $15 on all platforms and not $20 like Microsoft wanted.

They screwed Epic who wanted all DLC to be free like every other expansion prior to Gears of War. There's a reason why PS3 and PC got the Unreal Tournament Titan Pack and Xbox didnt.

And notice how on the marketplace, there is no such thing as an Ultimate or GOTY edition for On Demand games. Meanwhile PSN has them, Steam has them and Origin has them. Microsoft doesn't because they are still trying to sell you an $80 to $100 game even when retail price is down to $20. They even promote such games in their deals of the week to get unaware gamers to buy the content.

This brand is a huge money pit and after 12 years , I'm really glad I'm not a part of it anymore. It kinda feels as liberating as dumping my gold digging headache of an ex girlfriend.

#40 Posted by R3FURBISHED (10021 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED:

That's a cop out because you don't have any other answer. Meanwhile Microsoft and Valves relationship deminisher because they forced a charge for the L4D stuff that was supposed to be free and is very much free on the PC.

They have screwed Telltale who wanted to sell The Walking Dead for $20 as a season pass. Xbox is the only platform that charges $25 for the game. Not even Apple stooped that low.

They screwed Just Add Water when they wouldn't allow Strangers Wraith on the XBLA because their price was $15 on all platforms and not $20 like Microsoft wanted.

They screwed Epic who wanted all DLC to be free like every other expansion prior to Gears of War. There's a reason why PS3 and PC got the Unreal Tournament Titan Pack and Xbox didnt.

And notice how on the marketplace, there is no such thing as an Ultimate or GOTY edition for On Demand games. Meanwhile PSN has them, Steam has them and Origin has them. Microsoft doesn't because they are still trying to sell you an $80 to $100 game even when retail price is down to $20. They even promote such games in their deals of the week to get unaware gamers to buy the content.

This brand is a huge money pit and after 12 years , I'm really glad I'm not a part of it anymore. It kinda feels as liberating as dumping my gold digging headache of an ex girlfriend.

No I totally stand by that micro transaction don't matter unless it is content you are wanting to buy.
Such as the Minecraft skins on the Xbox 360 version. If you want to buy them they are there, if you don't you don't have to. The fact that they exist and are being sold is not a bad thing.

As far as pricing differences go, thats a completely different beast. And not one that has a 'correct' answer - you just have the cheaper and the more expensive option.

In regards to Xbox trends that should go away

forcing developers to pay to patch their games: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-26-microsoft-no-longer-charges-developers-to-patch-their-xbox-360-games

#41 Posted by Krelian-co (9988 posts) -

@Murderstyle75 said:

@R3FURBISHED:

That's a cop out because you don't have any other answer. Meanwhile Microsoft and Valves relationship deminisher because they forced a charge for the L4D stuff that was supposed to be free and is very much free on the PC.

They have screwed Telltale who wanted to sell The Walking Dead for $20 as a season pass. Xbox is the only platform that charges $25 for the game. Not even Apple stooped that low.

They screwed Just Add Water when they wouldn't allow Strangers Wraith on the XBLA because their price was $15 on all platforms and not $20 like Microsoft wanted.

They screwed Epic who wanted all DLC to be free like every other expansion prior to Gears of War. There's a reason why PS3 and PC got the Unreal Tournament Titan Pack and Xbox didnt.

And notice how on the marketplace, there is no such thing as an Ultimate or GOTY edition for On Demand games. Meanwhile PSN has them, Steam has them and Origin has them. Microsoft doesn't because they are still trying to sell you an $80 to $100 game even when retail price is down to $20. They even promote such games in their deals of the week to get unaware gamers to buy the content.

This brand is a huge money pit and after 12 years , I'm really glad I'm not a part of it anymore. It kinda feels as liberating as dumping my gold digging headache of an ex girlfriend.

No I totally stand by that micro transaction don't matter unless it is content you are wanting to buy.

Such as the Minecraft skins on the Xbox 360 version. If you want to buy them they are there, if you don't you don't have to. The fact that they exist and are being sold is not a bad thing.

As far as pricing differences go, thats a completely different beast. And not one that has a 'correct' answer - you just have the cheaper and the more expensive option.

In regards to Xbox trends that should go away

forcing developers to pay to patch their games: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-26-microsoft-no-longer-charges-developers-to-patch-their-xbox-360-games

How far will these lembots make bs excuses for microsoft terrible business practices with their customers.

#42 Edited by R3FURBISHED (10021 posts) -

@Krelian-co said:

@R3FURBISHED said:

No I totally stand by that micro transaction don't matter unless it is content you are wanting to buy.

Such as the Minecraft skins on the Xbox 360 version. If you want to buy them they are there, if you don't you don't have to. The fact that they exist and are being sold is not a bad thing.

As far as pricing differences go, thats a completely different beast. And not one that has a 'correct' answer - you just have the cheaper and the more expensive option.

In regards to Xbox trends that should go away

forcing developers to pay to patch their games: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-26-microsoft-no-longer-charges-developers-to-patch-their-xbox-360-games

How far will these lembots make bs excuses for microsoft terrible business practices with their customers.

what are you talking about? What business practices are you referring to? What excuses did I make?

Closest I came to an excuse was demonstrating that Microsoft has corrected some of their, at best, questionable business practices(charging to patch a game).