Well that explains why (along with shitty performance reported) it is 'mostly negative'. Hope this bullshit tanks the studio.Yeah, they apparently activated them after all the reviews dropped. No one knew anything about them until they dropped on Steam.
Cheating is meaningless in a one player game. Cheating is only something to be monitored and worried about when a game is competitive.Jesus, are people really this thick?
That you need to explain why introducing items into the game economy from a source outside of the ingame economy would be cheating?
Nope. Cheating is breaking the rules of a game and ruining the experience for the player. Cheating will ruin even singleplayer games. But as long as I'm the one doing it, with no tie to the developer, it's fine. It's on me. I'm ruining it for myself.Cheating is meaningless is a one player game. Cheating is only something to be monitored and worried about when a game is competitive.
Or perhaps it's that, like me, they don't share your assumption that developers are making the game worse/unbalanced in an effort to force people to pay money for those items. Maybe it's you who doesn't get that.I've had these same discussions with randos on twitter, and I'm just in awe how hard this is for people to get.
Yeah, in a hyper capitalist world, where maximizing profits is the main purpose for most every business, I'm gonna go and assume that these particular companies don't want to do that. And won't do it. Sure, they'll stuff a singleplayer game with microtransactions for basically cheating myself, but that's where they draw the line. They won't go so far as to adjust balancing numbers to push/nudge me towards actually buying them.Or perhaps it's that, like me, they don't share your assumption that developers are making the game worse/unbalanced in an effort to force people to pay money for those items. Maybe it's you who doesn't get that.
You mention Ubisoft. I've played all of those. Deus Ex (which is a game I specifically remember there being microtranaction arguments about). Assassin's Creed x10. Far Cry. Etc. And in exactly zero of those games have I spent any extra money on in-game items, nor have I ever felt that the game was overly punishing or restrictive because I didn't buy them.
There are a couple of words to describe people like that "naive" or "stupid".Or perhaps it's that, like me, they don't share your assumption that developers are making the game worse/unbalanced in an effort to force people to pay money for those items. Maybe it's you who doesn't get that.
Woo boy.There are a couple of words to describe people like that "naive" or "stupid".
The intentional move of the gaming industry towards micro transactions has been very deliberate and heavy handed for the last ~15 years or so. Keynotes by execs have focused on it, articles, studies, analyses and so on ... and they all come back to one thing: game designs change when the execs demand you find a way to incentivize players to 'Pay to Win' ... the percentage who will earn these things are relatively small and meaningless - they just up the pain factor to weed people out.
I really don't care to do that. All of my arguing is for my own benefit. A gradual ruining of my most favorite passtime.I do not care about policing my neighbors.
I'm almost certain it wasn't the devs, or better said, the creatives, in case the publisher and the dev company is the very same. Dev probably have to fight this shit every day, but money people will keep pushing. Since that's who's in control.One last thing: I saw some debate about whether the devs were responsible for microtransactions or not. I think the answer in 99.9% of cases is "no". A publisher makes that decision. But the publisher is a bunch of guys in suits doing conference calls and staring at spreadsheets, so obviously it's the developers who have to actually incorporate them into the game.
I share your concerns, but from my perspective, things have stayed pretty much where they've been for the past couple of decades. Monetization continues to be mostly cosmetics and purchase of meta items (like buying yourself skill points) that is optional and easily avoided.I really don't care to do that. All of my arguing is for my own benefit. A gradual ruining of my most favorite passtime.
I'm afraid that all we're seeing is a constant sliding into monetization hell. It started years ago with horse armor, and look where we are.
I'm pretty sure that if we don't make a big stink for all of these little encroachments, that's definitely where we'd be headed, on the fast lane. Because of big stinks like this, with DD2 being review bombed on Steam, there's a chance to slow down that progress; even a little bit.If the industry moved more and more in that direction and away from single player, one time purchase games, I would join you guys in being disgusted. As it stands now, while I see articles periodically about the "death" of single player games, I see no actual evidence of their imminent demise. A big chunk of the industry's most financially successful and critically lauded games continue to be single player games I buy, once, for $50-$70.
I don't see it that way. I think review bombing good single player games that take chances creatively can only be a negative. The message that publishers get from poor sales for Dragon's Dogma 2 will be that they should be more conservative and stick more to familiar properties and avoid putting money into more niche projects and genres. They'll just make yet another military shooter or cheap to make battle royale game. Which, by the way, will still be monetized to the gills because they will never turn down money, and those practices make them money, no matter how loud the people who don't like them are.I'm pretty sure that if we don't make a big stink for all of these little encroachments, that's definitely where we'd be headed, on the fast lane. Because of big stinks like this, with DD2 being review bombed on Steam, there's a chance to slow down that progress; even a little bit.
Possibly. I just hope the noise about the monetization also reaches their ears. But who's to know ...I don't see it that way. I think review bombing good single player games that take chances creatively can only be a negative. The message that publishers get from poor sales for Dragon's Dogma 2 will be that they should be more conservative and stick more to familiar properties and avoid putting money into more niche projects and genres. They'll just make yet another military shooter or cheap to make battle royale game. Which, by the way, will still be monetized to the gills because they will never turn down money, and those practices make them money, no matter how loud the people who don't like them are.
FWIW, I share your impression, though I haven't played the game. When I watched their presentation, I feared there was a lot of grind to move from point A to point B, without the normal fast travel and the capacity to carry the loot. It's still fine; it's their decision and it could work.But if the developer introduces cheating into the game, and monetizes it, they're directly in conflict of interest with balancing that game to push me to spend money on those cheats. They will make the game grindy-er, more annoying or whatever they can to get me to spend money.