Rare wants the items you can pay for to have "emotional value, not mechanical value".
It's honestly the best microtransactions I have heard of. Also the fact you can actually earn the paid currency through normal play is another plus. "We thought long and hard about what's right for our game experience, and the key thing we think is that it has to add to the fun, social nature of the game. So anything in this area will not impact power or progression, and you'll always know what you're getting - so that means no loot crates."
Sounds like the best way to implement it. You're not beholden to loot crates and can buy the cosmetics you want or earn them in-game.
"It's honestly the best microtransactions I have heard of." Which means it is still extremely terrible
Microtransactions don't belong in paid games.
So basically it’s the same system that Uncharted 4 implemented. Not bad.
@DialgaMarine and @Septic I don’t like it. And yes, I did said about Uncharted 4 MP MT, but in the end, I always hate MT in paid games. Because it shouldn’t belong. MT only belong in free to play. Edit : And Septic, just don’t.
I'm getting it day one. wouldn't miss this for the world. The beta was so much fun. Rare sure is on to something great here.
Them waiting 3 months is just long enough to get those first few months of sales in before people start complaining.
The thing is there's no leveling up in this game for better equipment or ships, so cosmetics are really the only way for people to know what "Level" you are. If people can just buy the cosmetics without earning them then whats the point of playing for a long period of time? I was a part of the closed alpha and closed beta, and while it is fun playing co-op the fact that it has no leveling up system and microtransactions are going to kill this game. I can't think of any recent mmo,co-op,mp games that succeeded without a means to Rank/Level up.
"Microtransactions don't belong in paid games." while I agree with that sentiment... the companies that produce these games do not. And since it in no way hinders ones ability to play using stock content then I see no issue. I've not bought into MT's before and I'm not about to start now but that won't stop me from playing a game that has them. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last. In fact last gen there were extra content you could buy that changed your cosmetics but ultimately did nothing to change the outcome of the game. Anyone remember horse armor???
You sound like Phil
So weird, why did they implement them afterward?
Why is the game $60 if there are going to be MTs? It's interesting how full priced games seem to be implementing a f2p MT model. It's genius as far as the greed factor. Get $60 for the game, grow the user base while avoiding the bad pub of MTs, then 3 months later when ppl are starved for new items throw in a boatload of paid MTs.
I have been saying for months that this game would just be a vehicle for MT's. And when gamepass was announced it was obvious what Microsoft had in mind. A free to play like service that you have to pay a monthly fee to play. In ten years people will look back at this just like we look back at horse armor and wish people had just said no.
"It's honestly the best microtransactions I have heard of." The lessor of two evils? MT does not belong in gaming, period. "Also the fact you can actually earn the paid currency through normal play is another plus." In other words you have two options. Option 1 : You pay to win (And dont think that wont happen). Option 2 : You grind for your earnings. EA, here we come.
@Inzo Hmmmmm I never knew you could pay to win with only cosmetic items. What do I win? bragging rights? Read the article before commenting.
Retro Gamers like you need to stop defending this BS even if it means it's your precious system exclusive MT LB Never ever good for gamers The grind will become more tedious in order for them to earn more money
No this is no good. Why wait 3 months? Are they worried about something? MTs do not belong in a 60 dollar game. Damn.. right when I started to believe this game would be something special, MS's true colors started to show. Lets be honest here, this game is ripe for GaaS, hell it was probably made from the start to include MTs. That said, we will have to wait and see. But how many will wait 3 months to get it ? Damn you MS for finding yet another way to further your plans while giving ideas to EA...
i sense the massive flop.. best flop RARE has ever done.
the best kind of shit is still shit annyone would prefer not including them....like monster hunter. speaking of monster hunter "jumps right back"
Appolgysts everywhere, sycophants
The part that bugs me with his statement he says "there will be opportunities to earn paid currency through normal play" which reads like it's not something you get normally, but as like a daily checklist thing that pays out once a day rather then a continuous method of getting it through normal gameplay all the time.
most pple dont even read the article before commenting
@TTD mmm I never knew you dont take the time to read a post. I am well aware of its cosmetic MT thats why I said dont think pay to win wont happen because it will. EA and Activision made billions last year on MT, you really believe MS is going to miss out on that by making MT purely cosmetic? Think again bud.
I think RARE has realised that the game has no depth and will try to get return on investment as quickly as possible without annoying the players. Its a beautiful looking game but the core gameplay is very basic.
I do like how they are handling the Microtransaction in this game. The fact that you can earn real currency through playing the game is cool. Smite does that as well. It's not greedy like the way EA does it. Plus I'm only paying 10$ to own this game thanks to Game Pass.
Smite is Free to Play.
But you're not owning it you're going to have to continue to pay $10 a month in order to play it if you don't continue to pay that $10 a month then you can't play the game
But don't you have to keep paying that $10 to play it? Plus XBL to access it or it's full features?
to the guy yes you do if after the month is up and you don't pay for another month you can't play the game in order to play the game and game pass you have to continue to be a subscriber to Game Pass itself otherwise you can't play the game it's been stated many times some people are so clueless you can't just pay $10 for one month and think you're going to get the game for free forever no you have to continue paying the $10 a month otherwise you can't play the game now if you're done with the game within that month don't want to play anymore then you don't have to continue paying but you still can't play the game
$10 to play and another $300 to enjoy it. not bad
Why is everyone surprised by this? It's Microsoft. They'll definitely get their $60 dollar's or more from the Microtransactions not to mention after buying the game
Right, because everyone playing this game will definitely buy 60 dollars worth of cosmetic add-ons.
And at no point did you mention all the POST LAUNCH content that will come to this game...typical.
@UnHoly_One: "Right, because everyone playing this game will definitely buy 60 dollars worth of cosmetic add-ons." it's the very nature of Micro transaction. you know, to make money off of people is the whole point. it would be a little different if MS invested in single player games, but they aren't are they?
uncharted 4 and the last of Us had MTs I'm surprise you're comparing UC4 and TLOU with Sea of Thieves especially after playing that beta.
Of course the idea is to make money. And of course it will work. I just took issue with the comment that made it sound as if every single person would spend 60 bucks on MT's, when in fact, a good portion of players will probably spend exactly ZERO.
@timotim "And at no point did you mention all the POST LAUNCH content that will come to this game...typical." Where else would it go?
I think both sides are starting to fling mud that they shouldn't. 1. Microsoft has had these type of MTX since the start of this generation. They make money off of it, but the people who pay for it also fund additional content (NOT DLC, but additional content). It's not as abusive as many other games. If you're completely anti-MTX, then you should note you've got to criticize almost everyone by now, even Nintendo that uses physical MTX via Amiibos. 2. Sony also has had these type of MTX, but to say that they are worse than what Microsoft has done is naive and attempt to fling mud. U4 had the same MTX where you could earn it with in-game currency and with real cash. And to malign SP standalone DLC costs as if that's something you shouldn't have is pretty bad considering it's exactly the type of DLC people have asked for over MTX, lootboxes, and poor quality Season Pass DLC that is typically cut from the core game.
I wonder if adding to the game to their online gaming service had anything to do with this?
MAKE THE MT FREE RARE
You might be overreacting a bit here, affrogamer. It's cosmetic. Honestly, you're outraged by a potion that allows you to turn your character old temporarily? Don't you think the outrage is misplaced? I'm supposing you read the clickbait title, but not the article. I'm not very interested in Sea of Thieves, but the only real concern here is what Rare wants to do and how that might conflict with what Microsoft wants to do. Odds are, they'll want to monetize whatever they can, especially if the game is a runaway success.
I am so surprised about how naive people are on here. I am honestly relieved that micro transactions are on here. Seriously how do people think a game can survive for years after giving free content and big updates for free??? The hundreds of people who continue to add to the game work on it through the kindness of their hearts?? Then they earn the money for their families by selling big issues? We either have no dlc which is fine but for me I want this game to continue to grow like rocket league and overwatch. Paid dlc to split the community like COD dlc and battlefield. Or OPTIONAL COSMETIC items that some people buy. Are people going crazy??
I'm fine with this as long as there are still cosmetics that can only be earned by completing certain things in the game. I don't want to spend hundreds of hours to achieve a certain look only for somebody else to buy the same look without even playing one hour. The game is going to last for many years and has no paid dlc so microtransactions are a must but they have to be done right
Did you even read it before overreacting?
Lol nah staying away
So you stayed away from Uncharted and the Last of Us too right?
Apples and oranges tho... UC and TLOU are single player games that have ZERO MT's, the multiplayer side does indeed have MT's, yes, but Sea of Thieves only has ONE mode of play... It is, however, good to see that they shied away from lootbox like stuff, which is a positive in my book!
Microtransactions are BS in any paid game, it's not a pissing contest
"Sea of Thieves only has ONE mode of play" Mode of play that isn't affected in any way by these MTs since they're only cosmetic. We, consumers, are as responsible for MTs as publishers are so if people don't want MTs in their hobby then they shouldn't support any game that has them. Coming to the internet and being vocal against MTs while at the same time supporting and making excuses for some games that have MTs won't change anything.
@Aenea LOL! I love the distinction you are desperately making between UC4 and SoT. They both have microtransactons- doesn't matter whether the game is SP or MP?? Apples and oranges....you're having a laugh 🤣 "So you stayed away from Uncharted and the Last of Us too right?" Lol yeah right they did...
Aenea you're a hypocrite in every sense of the word. So MT are now okay as long as a Single player mode is in the game and MT is more only? So why did you jump on so many games that have that set up?
@Aenea according to your logic, their is nothing wrong with SWBF2 since it has single player campaign.
@Aenea You are not helping here. @Imalwaysright @Septic @Zeref @chiefjohn117 I don’t care if they are cosmetic or P2W. I always hate MT in paid games. Would you guys say the same thing to Halo 5 MP MT, Overwatch MT and Uncharted 4 MP MT ? Like I said, MT shouldn’t belong in paid games. Look at Horizon Zero Dawn and Witcher 3, both games give us free update and an excellent expansion pack. People said cosmetic doesn’t affect gameplay mechanics but it does affect gameplay experience for me at least. And you people know what is it ? Jealousy. For example, like Overwatch MT and Halo 5 MT, I want to get a “cool” gears like others but it was so stressful for me because I will never get these “cool” gears. And about Uncharted 4 MP MT, I did said that topic couple years ago and trust me, I hate MT in Uncharted 4 MP. But again and again and again, I don’t care if these are cosmetic or P2W. MT shouldn’t belong in paid games.
I've never let the inclusion of MT stop me from enjoying a game. I simply dont buy into them and play the game anyway using the stock content that is included.
@UCforce i don’t know what world you are in. Both expansions for Horizon zero dawn and the witcher 3 were paid expansions. If they would be free expansions if they allowed MTs for cosmetic purposes only then i’d totally be game for that (like Halo 5, Gears 4, and overwatch) instead of me having to spend my money on DLC, i could get it for free and not spend another dime
Nah, he was total sucker in that regard
@krib "Both expansions for Horizon zero dawn and the witcher 3 were paid expansions" So we are including expansions that cost 20$ as mt now....
@golby “Look at Horizon Zero Dawn and Witcher 3, both games give us free update and an excellent expansion pack”- UCFORCE implied free. But while you are asking the question, would you rather have cosmetic MT’s that do nothing gameplay wise and are 100% optional and with that comes Free DLC and expansions, leaving those that don’t but MTs with free content and support for years or No MTs, But paid expansions that separate the players that don’t want to pay extra? because for someone who doesn’t drop money in overwatch or halo, the supports been great
un4 is a fucking amazing game with both modes dont compare them please
i love how u automatically assumed hes a fanboy lol because he said he was staying away from it. pathetic.
Got to love how people skew things to fit their agenda. "Single player games should never have MTs!" "Oh but its single player first, multiplayer second.. so its okay!" "Full price games should NOT have MTs!" "But but... but." Riiiiiight..
Both of those games had lengthy single player experiences worth the RRP alone... Sea of Thieves does not.
Uncharted and The Last of Us have single player campaigns.
@Krib "@golby “Look at Horizon Zero Dawn and Witcher 3, both games give us free update and an excellent expansion pack”- UCFORCE implied free. But while you are asking the question, would you rather have cosmetic MT’s that do nothing gameplay wise and are 100% optional and with that comes Free DLC and expansions, leaving those that don’t but MTs with free content and support for years or No MTs, But paid expansions that separate the players that don’t want to pay extra? because for someone who doesn’t drop money in overwatch or halo, the supports been great" Well i dont know why you are directing that at me as i never said it. but you know as well as anyone on this sight what UCforce meant. the updates were free, we had over 20 free DLC for the game, including new quests, hair styles,. outfits and alot more. But the expansions cost $ and there is no issue with that as each one added about 20 hours to the game. so again, why are you comparing witcher Expansions to MTs in the likes of overwatch and destiny and stuff...?
@septic Yes, I stayed away from the MP parts of UC and TLOU, tho tried them both for a few matches, but wasn't all that impressed. Enjoyed the heck out of the main game tho, you know, the SINGLE PLAYER part!? So yes, it's really rather daft to even try to compare them....... @iam I wasn't saying anything about the MT's an sich, was replying to the silly comparison of an MP mode of an SP game to a game that is only online/MP... @chief I'm so not a fan of MT's, no matter who publishes the game or on what platform. I also find cosmetic only MT's better than P2W or other things that help with progression, so SoT is doing that bit right at least. Is it so hard for some people to understand that I merely replied to Zeref's silly comparison to UC and TLOU? The comparison is not correct, not because of MT's or anything, just because the MT's of those games are in the MP addons and not in the main game while SoT's main game in the online MP part... Reading comprehension and looking at context can be hard I suppose when you assume everything people write is either glowingly positive or silly negative, my comment was neither of those...