Brandon: Spartacus Legends is a free to play fighting game published Ubisoft and developed by Kung Fu Factory. Does the game impress?
The Games as a Service Movement, a collection of powerful (they count Sony, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Capcom, EA among their members) loosely organized game companies and corporations would like to take ownership away from players and have players instead pay for games continuously (a lot of us first heard this term in Cliff Bleszinski’s famous blog in which he defends pay to win games, which you can read here). Their existence, the fact of the name they’ve chosen for themselves is worrisome in-and-of-itself, but, make no mistake, they plan on turning video games into services, thus if they got their way, it would mean an end to game ownership.
While I do enjoy a bout of 'Clash of Clans' on my Android, it will never replace true gaming experiences found of PC/PS4/X1. Games such as Uncharted or Halo cannot be replicated on mobile phones because of many issues, and not just graphics. Controls and battery life are the two biggest concerns in my eyes as something like Uncharted would be impossible to play with on-screen buttons and battery life would drain in an instant
Yes please I love choice as long as they don't take away big budget paid for game.
I personally would love more games like war frame, war thunder, DC universe and planetside.
Just because it makes the game easier if you give devs money it doesn't mean you have too.
If they adopt that model completely they will not be considered core games will they. Big Powerful Publishers are smart, they will keep offering separate high profile core games for us as well as casual games for a more casual mainstream audience. Keeping the money coming from all types of customers.
Hopefully as gamers we will not have that model pushed on us!
I am happy to buy a full game pay once and thats it! I do not want a limited amount of turns or matches before having to pay to unlock more. That kind of future is terrifying!
I refuse to support any game like that! although some MMO's that are free to play are very borderline
Well if they "push" it on us we don't have to buy into it. They won't hold a gun to our heads making us accept this. If enough refuse to buy into it then they lose sales, which means money. Money talks you know what walks. Microsoft tried to push always online DRM with X1. Because there was so much push back they dropped that policy. The real power is with the consumer, the only question is will they be smart enough to know the scam and reject it.
Subscriptions to game related services make more revenue than the traditional model we know and love. If the industry decides it can make more money with less of us it will. Those of us who do not buy in run the risk of the industry evolving without us, if it does and we do want to game then yes we will be forced to bite the bullet or play older games on formats past... which is not a market that will last forever.
If gamers don’t come together and draw a line in the sand, the video games we love will soon be a thing of the past.They will be replaced with the deleterious and extremely profitable pay-to-win brand of video games that have come to dominate both mobile formats. Game ownership will disappear. New titles will be broken down into parts and sold piecemeal and because these parts will either have a half-life or be non-transferable, these games will essentially be rentals. And they’ll be rented at exorbitant prices, making games cost hundreds even thousands of dollars, if a player hoped to play them entirely. What’s more, these pieces will often be the components that make a game a game—think levels, skills and loot—or will serve to extinguish boring elements that have been purposely woven into a game’s fabric for no other reason than to put a price tag on them. Worst of all, they’ll often appear as solutions to a game’s challenges and because these solutions will be foisted on a player.
If it doesn't break the game, then i have no problem. But however, if it's the other way around, then hell will break loose because i do not want to be forced to buy a certain weapon, parts, or a car that i can just unlock through progression. So yeah, i will have a problem with microtransactions if it's setup that way! but long as they got it setup where you have to level up first until you hit that certain level requirement, then no! i will be fine with it, because that gives a choice! do i want to buy it with real money, or just do it the ol' fashion way? in this case, i'll do it the ol' fashion way.
It basically does break every game it's in, for me. There are some exceptions I've been able to ignore, but still, not entirely.
There is always a nagging feeling at the back of my mind that the thing I'm playing is no longer a game, but now a fool's pursuit. One designed to frustrate, rather than intrigue. One designed to waste time, rather than spend it. All this happening with the goal of steering me to spend more money on a game I already bought.
Microtransactions have the capacity to severly tarnish the reputation of games and negatively impact sales.
You managed to sum up every point I had in mind perfectly. Well said bubbs for u.
OT: If this is where we are headed we are F cu ked sideways.
I hate Microtransactions it just a way of noobs unlocking stuff early because they lack the skill to unlock the parts/ weapons any other way for example BF4 short cut packs
We aren't boycotting microtransactions or freemium games. We are boycotting them when they break the game and when they are both essential items and ridiculously expensive. By essential I don't mean you need it to win but rather it's a vital part of the game. And that's it. If you can agree with the above go here:
http://savehardcoregames.co...
And sign up. We aim to send a message to the greedier elements in the industry that we (gamers) aren't going to stand idly when they create crappier games and then up the price to play ten fold.
Microtransations will play a much bigger part in this new generation - however it is important to distinguish between the different types. Some are you pay for cosmetic extras like a new paint job for your car or new castle in an RPG. However the BAD kind of micro transactions are in a game where the levels have purposefully been designed to be difficult so that the player effectively must pay for extras to make them passable - and this is so bad.
Microtransactions are barely acceptable in freemium games but should be banned from full priced games because the consumer has already payed for the software. A case in point being Plants Vs Zombies Garden Warfare, it's a full priced game but gets stupid difficult - however if you pay for extras it gets easier! Publishers should not try and nickel and dime their customers.
Don't play free to play games. Problem solved.
You're playing something that developers have put thousands, sometimes even millions, of dollars to make. And you're playing it for free. Are you surprised that they try that hard to make that money back?
If you want an even playing field, play a buy to play game where you pay once upfront and everyone gets the content from the start.
They choose that then. They could've made a regular game instead so they knew how customers would react.
Wrong. The problem is far from solved.
Well made games still make bundles.
What's more, well-made games with player-friendly microtransactions are raking in the dough, for example, Paths of Exile and Team Fortress.
In the mobile markets its different, there crap games with manipulative IAPs also sometimes rake in the dough. Immersive game design is replaced with cleverly implemented ploys to get players to continuously spend.
In this way AAA game design will slowly begin spinning down the toilet as it did in the mobile markets. If you do not see this, play what passes for a microtransaction-heavy AAA game on mobile and you will see that poorly implemented microtransactions crapify game design wholesale. If left unchecked they will deteriorate our hardcore games across the board. This has already happened on two platforms. Why would we stand by and let it happen on our consoles. We need to stand together now, at this point, when pay to win has just begun to rear its ugly head on PC and consoles, and say to the industry: 'we demand that you do this right.'
Incendy35, Hearthstone and Jetpack Joyride are examples of it done well, Real Racing 3, Dungeon Keeper (mobile), Crimson Dragons, Forza 5 and, dare I say, GT6 are examples of it done wrong ($120 dollar race cars = Bl&w me).
We're saying that every time a consumer engages with a game that exploits players via manipulative microtransactions, it increases the likelihood that we will see more of the same. The more players reject it, the less we will see it.
We're saying lets stand together and reject the bad stuff. That's it.
I've played a number of free to play games such as Need for Speed World where you have to buy the cars and components etc - that's fine but I don't agree with this when I've already paid full price ie. in Grid 2 you couldn't compete in certain events without buying extra cars, GT6 high car pricing and low race wins means you run out of cash even if you win everything.
I purchased all the cars in GT5 but there's no way I will be able to get anywhere near that in GT6.
So just curious but the costs that you are indicating for both Forza and Grand Turismo.....how exactly are you coming up with the 80 and 120 dollar figures? I have never seen a car pack cost that much as far as DLC. With Forza, yes you can buy tokens to purchase cars on the quick for actual use, but that is in no way a necessity. It is simply a shortcut to bypass what would have been the normal process of getting those cars in racing games before that model arrived. In older non connected games you still had to grind the hell out of a racing game to earn the in game dollars to get a car you wanted. This model still exists. Now there is just a way to circumvent it. So frankly i have no idea why you put both of those games on that list. I get the mobile games, as they are huge offenders, but the racing games make 0 sense on your boycott list.
Logikil,
Thank you. I found it here:
http://www.teamvvv.com/en/n...
I will attach a further reading (bibliography) later this evening, and parts II-V will have more specific references; this piece is meant as an introduction to a series of articles.
As I am sure you know, sometimes things like prices can change while you are working on a piece. Forza's prices we're revamped at the end of last year (not exactly while I was working on this). I'll look into it. More importantly, this is a community-based boycott--started that way and will end that way.
If most players feel anything should be removed, it will be removed.
HardcoreDroid,
So you validated that what you are referring to is a purchase of either credits or tokens within game in order to circumvent the grinding that would normally be necessary in order to purchase some of those more expensive cars. So i am curious, why wasn't it a big deal to previously have to grind for those cars, before PSN or XBL, but now its a big deal that you can pay to skip that grind? That is the real issue I have, specifically when you start talking about something like a ban. Neither Forza nor GT require you to pay for those cars in order to thoroughly enjoy them. While i agree with many parts of your argument, I do not agree with those games being on your ban list.
@logikil
Well, if you are going to charge to skip all the grinding you have to make sure a grind is there to begin with.
In the end, all that grinding is meaningless if someone can just buy the car outright. Seeing you race that car doesn't automatically say "you put in the effort to get it". Instead, that symbol of your hard work is tarnished since it says "you probably paid for it", at first glance. You are reduced to having to defend your hard work instead of letting your reward speak for itself.
@aliengmr
So you are saying there is something wrong there just because you feel you have to defend your credentials as a gamer because you went the grind route and someone paid?? Come on man it's video games. If you choose to grind to get a car, its just that, your choice. If you choose to pay for it, maybe you felt your time was worth more than the constant grind to get the car you want....again it's your choice. Also, buying the car doesn't make the person a better gamer so ultimately who cares. The fact that you are saying that your hardwork is somehow tarnished though...that's just ludicrous. Perhaps it's the fact that I have aged beyond thinking games are any more than just that, a game, but I am past feeling I need to prove my worth by how well i do at a game. If you put the hours in, then the sense of accomplishment should be your own, you shouldn't need validation from someone else.
I play a lot of games, both on consoles and mobile. The pay to win model is definitely real "on mobile/PC anyhow" but you don't have to participate. For example, Hearthstone and Jetpack Joyride are two of my favorite tablet games and both are sort of pay to win. However, you don't have to play them that way. You can take the more difficult path and try to win without paying and to be honest it feels more rewarding that way.
I think the only way these games work is if they offer multiple paths like these two games do. Casual gamers will give up on the game without a model that allows them to "cheat" and hardcore gamers will give up if there isn't a model that let's them get rewarded through game accomplishments. The model works, developers are making money and both Casual and Hardcore gamers are enjoying these games.
"but you don't have to participate"<-----for every person who uses and makes this argument, there is 100 people clicking the buy button.
That is fine, they are paying the bills for us hardcore gamers to play these gems for free!
Its not fine. The new SC fight that is free to play has no MP because "We have a pay to win model and we don't want to handicap people in MP" when the dev flat tells you you have to pay to win there is a problem. Yeah these "free" games are just so awesome.
I'd simply avoid the game then. If a Soul Calibur game isn't going to follow the previous model, then i have 0 use for it. Its an SC game with no multiplayer, why would you even look at it in the first place. Also, frankly I'd give some credit to the developer since they realized that adding the MP would make the game less entertaining for folks as a result of the model, most likely realizing it was going to alienate a number of players. And please don't get me wrong. Frankly I despise micro transaction based mobile games. I avoid them at all cost. I just don't see it as such a big issue on consoles.
Signed. I hate the idea of any monetary system being woven into the core mechanics of the gameplay in any game, the idea only creates games centered around a pay system that is intentionally made to break a game for the purpose of scamming money out of its players. If you come across anything in a game where the solution to the problem is 'Buy this' then the game has failed the customer and itself.
I have stopped acquiring (free or upfront cost) games that have what I call mandatory microtransactions. Meaning you either have to grind 100's of hrs or you have to pay to be able to continue to progress a game forward.
I only acquire games, where the total cost is not "pay as you go". I pay to receive a complete gaming experience. If they don't provide me clear value for money spent they don't want my dollars.
I have no problem with microtransactions. But, there must always be a price specified if you want the experience free of advertising and free of microtransactions.
Ubisoft has announced the start of Tournaments mode for Spartacus Legends, which is a new PvP battle mode where players will compete for the title of Champion of Capua.
