GRcade

If the "micro" transactions / pay-to-win issues weren't off-putting enough, making profit from some poor chap's passing would seem to be plumbing previously unknown depths even for Warner Bros. Good grief.

The Jimquisition gets stuck into Warner Bros. Just how did Warner execs turn what was a touching, honourable idea into something so tasteless?

jawafour wrote:Just how did Warner execs turn what was a touching, honourable idea into something so tasteless?

As he says, this is just how such companies think and work to the point that its a no-brainer. Now they're coming out with handwringing/backpeddling statements to try and fix a PR disaster they didn't think would happen.

For all the hollering and gnashing of teeth across the internet about how awful Warner Bros are folk will still buy the game regardless.

Guaranteed chart topper.

Gemini73 wrote:For all the hollering and gnashing of teeth about how awful Warner Bros are folk will still buy the game regardless. Guaranteed chart topper.

Thats the sad part; that most of this stuff will go unnoticed by the casual game-buying audience rather than nerds like us who read the gaming press and think about stuff like lootboxes and season passes with a more critical eye. Either that or it'll do a mass effect andromeda and absolutely tank, who knows.

[dailymotion][/dailymotion]

Trelliz wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:For all the hollering and gnashing of teeth about how awful Warner Bros are folk will still buy the game regardless. Guaranteed chart topper.

Thats the sad part; that most of this stuff will go unnoticed by the casual game-buying audience rather than nerds like us who read the gaming press and think about stuff like lootboxes and season passes with a more critical eye. Either that or it'll do a mass effect andromeda and absolutely tank, who knows.

Generally gamers online are full of gooseberry fool and just want to feel part of the crowd. Most will still buy it, again regardless.

If anyone still fancies the game (you know rather than the stuff going on around it), its available for preorder for £34.85 from Simplygames...

http://deals.simplygames.com/search?key ... 20Of%20War

I would like to play it but, after the pay-to-win, loot box and dreadful handling of that DLC, I will hold off until I can get it for a lot lower price in a sale.

Being a paragon of moral virtue I shall not be purchasing this game.

jawafour wrote:I would like to play it but, after the pay-to-win, loot box and dreadful handling of that DLC, I will hold off until I can get it for a lot lower price in a sale.

Hold off and get it second hand, that way WB get none of your money at all.

jawafour wrote:I would like to play it but, after the pay-to-win, loot box and dreadful handling of that DLC, I will hold off until I can get it for a lot lower price in a sale.

Nothing is making you buy the DLC for the game though is it.

Obviously we don't know what's going to happen exactly with all that stuff, but its mere existence doesn't mean that its definitely going to be required to have fun playing the game.

HSH28 wrote:

jawafour wrote:I would like to play it but, after the pay-to-win, loot box and dreadful handling of that DLC, I will hold off until I can get it for a lot lower price in a sale.

Nothing is making you buy the DLC for the game though is it.

Obviously we don't know what's going to happen exactly with all that stuff, but its mere existence doesn't mean that its definitely going to be required to have fun playing the game.

This is not being done out of any sense of altruism or generosity. This type of "service" is by its very nature underhanded and insidious. Just because WB tells you they don't have to take your money, do you think they don't want your money? Do you think that's not the point of it being there in the first place, and they won't do what it takes to get that money by making it as tempting as possible through lower drop rates throughout; a psychological test of your resolve while offering an easy way out of the problem they created.

Trelliz wrote:This is not being done out of any sense of altruism or generosity. This type of "service" is by its very nature underhanded and insidious. Just because WB tells you they don't have to take your money, do you think they don't want your money? Do you think that's not the point of it being there in the first place, and they won't do what it takes to get that money by making it as tempting as possible through lower drop rates throughout; a psychological test of your resolve while offering an easy way out of the problem they created.

Of course they want your money, there isn't a game publisher out there that doesn't want to make more money out of you, companies exist to make money.

I've ordered the game, I will not be purchasing any of the DLC or in game credit or whatever for it. It'll either be fun to play that way or it won't, but as far as I'm concerned the monetized part of the in-game might as well not exist, its not testing my resolve.

I'm willing to spend £35 on the game as it is, because I think what is there looks like it will be fun to play.

HSH28 wrote:Of course they want your money, there isn't a game publisher out there that doesn't want to make more money out of you, companies exist to make money.

Of course, games are ultimately products, every year we all queue up to be marketed at during e3, taken in by all the shiny baubles and smiling executives. However there is such a thing as going too far. Of course companies exist to try and make money, but is the price of the main game not enough? Is the season pass which doubles the RRP (note, NOT the lower price you can often get elsewhere) not enough? Are these lootboxes not enough goddamn money to milk from their customers?

The excuses they make about "choice" and "convenience" are all bullshit too; if it was about choice then there'd be an option when starting the game, an "i ain't got time for that" mode which ups the drop rates which would achieve the same "convenience" without taking people for a ride.

I don't buy the argument that they need to sell all this gooseberry fool to break even as its bad either way; either they are lying to our faces to make more money or their development is so bloated and gratuitous that taking the piss to this degree is needed.

As Mr Sterling rightly put to publishers like Warner Bros, if after the main game sale, the season pass, all the DLC and micro transactions, the loot boxes and everything else you've pushed out the door you're still not making any money then perhaps this industry isn't for you.

Of course we all know the truth. Of course these publishing giants are turning over a few bob.

twitter.com/gamasutra/status/909877692513816577

Trelliz wrote:Developers publicly wring hands while saying not much of substance about how "optional" the lootboxes are.

Best bit:

Bob Roberts: Yeah, it's such a charged topic. It's frankly complicated - you see the debate play out online and forum threads where people argue with each other about it.

Love that he implies here that some fans are arguing FOR loot boxes. No mate.

The nearest to that argument stance will be "You don't have to buy them" or, "You can gain them via traditional gameplay means". The counter to that is the fact, that, in all likelihood traditional ways of obtaining them will have been made more difficult to make the microtransaction seem more appealing.

At the same time, it's there as a player choice. It's there, from my perspective, for people who are protective of their spare time and scared when a massive game comes along that they're not getting to see the full experience.

Translation: You can pay extra to skip the filler content.