Comments

• Wellspring Member EpicPosts: 1,464

  November 2017

  @ 3:50 the video used a CD Project Red announcement -- that they will be "including online elements to ensure profitability" -- to infer that they're going to be using micro transactions in CyberPunk 2077.
  
  However, I don't think that is their plan according to this tweet...
  
  

  https://twitter.com/CDPROJEKTRED/status/932224394541314055

  
  
  
  Anyways, back to the topic, what is SoL's definition of a "microtransaction" exactly? Subscription based models can just as easily have microtransactions. They're not exclusive to F2P games.
  
  To some people, selling Relic items and tax-free apartments in a pre-order store, might still fall under the category of a microtransaction. Where exactly have they drawn the line?
  
  https://sagaoflucimia.com/pre-orders/

  

  --------------------------------------------
  
• KiwiHype Member UncommonPosts: 233

  November 2017

  Something worse than companies back pedaling/not listening to feedback is those that "appear" to climb on board trending wars to highlight their own game when point blank a yet to be fully published studio (sorry only aware of this game now because of this article) may just not be able to afford to have micro-transactions, the end. No need to consider beyond this or use larger companies to advertise their own. I quoted the appear earlier because its a perception from this video and initial thought not a conclusion that might change and we all know perceptions can have impact online.
  
  Another side to micro-transactions I hope we don't forget among all the trending noise is, this is a market filled with so many games now and the need to stand out more than others is very real so I, like many others equally as passionate as those who subscribe and often do both - really want to put our money behind them to see them succeed above all the others and I hope this is something we can continue to do instead of feeding into kickstarters/drawn out early accesses that might not make it to live development which I feel are hurting the industry more adding to the anxiety grid, gamers in general are locking in to.
  
  As a super fan of Star Wars I also simply cannot compare a game that has characters in it I have adored for almost all my life to something yet to fully exist/others that do but very poorly.
  
  This article did not make me want to play its game more it made me wary of it's developers coming across as unprofessional. I am 100% aware this may be an unpopular response and that's ok I will brave the choppy online waters with ya'll & look forward to further discussions knowing we all just want games, QUALITY games at the tips of our gaming fingers forever.
• ByrgenarHofen Member UncommonPosts: 55

  November 2017 edited November 2017

  Our point of view is that if we can’t manage to offer enough of a value for players to feel justified in paying their monthly fee to play our game, then we haven’t done our job as game developers.

  Hope they can stick to it.
• Albatroes Member LegendaryPosts: 7,671

  November 2017 edited November 2017

  Unfortunately, they wont be able to make progress without microtransactions of the cosmetic type at the very least simply because the market is over-saturated. There has to be additional revenue to off-shoot the numbers to be comparable to games in the past that utilized the sub only model. I'm not advocating for cash shops but the sooner people accept that they aren't going anywhere at what line will push them over the edge with them, the more they can accept advances being made in the current field. For me, I'm fine with cosmetics being sold on the side (like npc specific clothing similar to how FFXIV does, which is the only part of their cash shop I'll accept) but draw the line on games selling power or actual in game progression that influences gameplay. Its better to just be honest about it verse saying "we intended this to happen but we had to go towards this model in the end" like so many games have done in the past. Unfortunately, this title wont be any different. That's not knocking the title and I'm waiting on it as well as Pantheon but games like that I know will eventually have to have a cash shop with at least cosmetics in order to survive since the player base for games like that will not be that high.
• MadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505

  November 2017

  @Wellspring that tweet from CDPR is full of awesome.

  

  
• blamo2000 Member RarePosts: 1,130

  November 2017

  Does it bother anyone that sandbox is now used to describe crafting focused games with little actual content?
• Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,545

  November 2017

  Good luck!  They're going to need it.  ...A LOT.
• Lusts Member RarePosts: 205

  November 2017

  I don't believe a subscription model is viable either. There have only been two games I found worth my $15 subscription and that was World of Warcraft (This is around Vanilla and when Legion came out. The time in between those two periods wasn't really worth it.) and Final Fantasy XIV. Due to the amount of content both offered.
  
  Subscription models do not make me love a world as their claim states. Throwing down money doesn't instantly make me like a game. In fact, and FFXIV had this issue with me for a period of time; a subscription model actually makes a game feel more of a chore to me cause I feel like I am forced to play the game due to the money I put down for a limited amount of playtime. Instead, it becomes more of "Can I get this much content done in the amount of time I paid for?" and I end up feeling pressured due to it.
  
  For me, Free to Play and Pay to Play are both dated and need to go. I am a supporter of Buy to Play games. You buy the game, you get what you paid for and you can enjoy it. You feel financially invested into the game without feeling pressured to actually play it. I wish more games would adopt the Buy to Play model with expansions. And by 'expansions', I mean actual expansions. Not bite sized DLC. That will kill a game for me. (I am looking at you ESO). When a game adds both DLC and expansions, then it might as well be a Buy to Play game with microtransactions cause the cost for content starts to skyrocket.
• Kajidourden Member EpicPosts: 3,030

  November 2017

  They're not using micro-transactions because they're getting thousands out of people for nothing but promises. 
  
  If overwatch or battlefront could do that they would too.  At least in those games you get something functioning and usable when you spend money.