Why you should avoid Garden Warfare

The article discusses the games marketing and how it's potentially harmful for consumers with reference to microtransactions, online only access and the prospect of a free to play model for the game.

The story is too old to be commented.
nicksetzer12488d ago (Edited 2488d ago )

The game had no MT for months and it worked fine. Inclusion of microtransactions that in no way change the game shouldn't be an issue.... if they had not added them (assuming you have no interest in using them) would your experience be changed?

Not to mention it is 39.99 and has free DLC.

ChronoJoe2488d ago (Edited 2488d ago )

Just because they are not there does not mean that the game has not been built for them from the get go.

Also, MT was present in the PS4 and PS3 versions at launch.

Free DLC keeps consumers playing, it's not a free pass to do whatever you like. Killzone Shadowfall and TLOU have free DLC and restrict their paid DLC to additional content rather than layed micro-transactions.

DanielGearSolid2487d ago

Dude... Just play the game without using MT if it bothers u so much

700p2487d ago

Just dont buy them. Simple.

iSuperSaiyanGod2485d ago

Stupidest article I've seen . Picked this game up last night and have no complaints about it . Just sounds like a lot of complaining to me .

admiralvic2488d ago

Sigh~ This article again... though you could have at least done your research.

For one thing, it does suck that Garden Warfare is always online and I would gladly embrace an offline version of Garden Ops or at least the option to play split screen offline, but they've also more than made up for that choice. For one thing, the game comes in at a reduced price (something I don't recall other always online games doing) and Pop Cap has sweetened the deal with free DLC. This came in the form of two new online modes, at least two characters, a new pack of cards, at least one new map and other things PlayStation owners don't have yet like a new boss in Garden Ops. This was ALL given for free with purchase, which is something we should SUPPORT not shun the game because they didn't want to tack on a single player and charge up to 50% more for the game.

Furthermore, the game is actually NOT geared towards microtransactions and they were actually added months after the game originally released. While you still might not care for them, you have to consider how easily one can get coins in Garden Warfare. Doing almost anything to help your team gives you something. Shoot the all-star's machine gun near enemies? +10 for suppressive fire assist. Destroy something? like +10 coins per thing (you can easily toss a bean in a base and get like 30+ coins by just blowing up mines). Kill someone who is about to kill a friend? like +30. Kill someone who just killed someone? like +50. Summoned a zombie / planted something? +10. Heck, simply finishing the game gives you something like 2,500 coins. Level after hitting level 10 on a character? +10,000 coins. The game gives this stuff out so easily that you could probably score 5,000+ coins doing absolutely nothing is a round of Garden and Graveyards, which is half the amount needed to buy one of the character pack given cards. Just doing the stuff mentioned above I unlocked approximately half of the characters in the game (along with every alternate ability, most of the perks for said unlocked characters and countless accessories / consumables) in only 20 hours. Maybe its just me, but I don't think that is too bad, though the randomness of it all sucks. In any case, I don't mind the micro transactions. Like I've already explained, it's fairly easy to get coins and uber characters or not, I had relatively no problem consistently ranking in the top 5 in matches with the Berry Peashooter (unlocked from the start) and Foot Soldier (default soldier character). Plus I don't even have the super rare final unlockable for the FS either.

ChronoJoe2488d ago

Just because you can earn coins by other means, easily doesn't mean it's not geared towards microtransactions. Despite being easy to make a lot of coins, it also costs a lot of coins to get any substancial body of unlocks in the game.

In Garden Warfare I've sunk 23hours with an average 760 coin per minute intake. It's going to take me far beyond 5 days actual play time to unlock everything (assuming the last few unlocks become even more tedious). So it's easy to understand why for most consumers that is almost in achievable. The rate of uncrackable is admittedly better than many free to play games, but its slowed immensely relative to pay-to-play games.

I don't dislike the game, in fact I gave it a very favourable review, but I do think attempting to double dip consumers in this way wrong. Yes as you and the other comment says you can ignore the microtransactions, but I still don't believe a game should force you to grind in order to access the conent you already paid for. Perhaps some people don't mind it, but I don't see the average consumer putting 100 hours into the game in order to unlock everything, so I don't think it represents very good value for money.

ChronoJoe2488d ago

*the rate of unlockables

Annoying autocorrect.

admiralvic2488d ago

"Just because you can earn coins by other means, easily doesn't mean it's not geared towards microtransactions. Despite being easy to make a lot of coins, it also costs a lot of coins to get any substancial body of unlocks in the game."

Actually, it does. Nothing about the game is "geared towards micro transactions," as there is no necessity to do so. You can earn 5,000 ~ 9,000+ coins a game in Garden & Graveyards and around 3,000+ in other modes a game, which is ample coins to get a steady stream of packs.

"It's going to take me far beyond 5 days actual play time to unlock everything (assuming the last few unlocks become even more tedious). So it's easy to understand why for most consumers that is almost in achievable. The rate of uncrackable is admittedly better than many free to play games, but its slowed immensely relative to pay-to-play games."

This says more about the amount of content than anything else. After approximately the 44 hour point (it would actually be much sooner than this and if you can maintain a 760 CPM average) you should unlock every character in the game besides the one for levels, though you should have ample skip stars to buy off at least a few of them. This is also the end of the REAL content and all that will be left are costume items and a few stray upgrades. Furthermore, go play other shooters and you'll actually find a LOT of online games do this...

Call of Duty has camo skins, perks for leveling and such. Uncharted 3 had perks and even an unlockable character if you prestiged enough times. Battlefield 4 and Hardline have battle packs.

"I don't dislike the game, in fact I gave it a very favorable review"

You keep saying this, but it's starting to feel like you're using it as a get out of free card, similar to how I could say "no offense" and then follow it up by "you're a ****ing idiot." Is there any way to not be offended by the statement and just because I prefaced it by saying no offense, does that instantly mean I can say whatever I want without recourse?

"Yes as you and the other comment says you can ignore the microtransactions, but I still don't believe a game should force you to grind in order to access the conent you already paid for... so I don't think it represents very good value for money."

So let me get this straight, you think having various unlockables so you don't just hit a wall after a couple of hours is not only a bad thing, but somehow offers you less value? I'm sorry, but thats just terrible logic. Not only do you show no understanding of the system, which is designed so you can almost always be working towards something, but there are a lot of games that force you to "grind to access content you already paid for." Yes, even games without microtransactions. Borderlands has countless extremely rare guns that most people would never see without duplication (this ultimately devalues the game, but I digress) and several bosses are near impossible to beat without extremely high level gear, Disgaea has post game weapons, story and unlockable characters that take approximately 100+ hours to unlock. most online shooters now a days hide weapons / gear as level rewards. Even games like Rayman Legends characters that takes countless hours of grinding lums to unlock.

Ultimately you're just pissing on accessibility (the option to use microtransactions) and unlockable content (you want it all upfront), which is sort of silly when you think about it.

ChronoJoe2488d ago

1. Your differentiation between 'real' content and presumably some sort of intangible, unreal content doesn't make any sense. Content is content and everyone wants different things for different reasons, someone want might an aesthetic customisation as much as I want a damage upgrade unlock, to discredit that is your own bias.

2. The comparisons you use aren't particularly apt, for instance it takes about 20 hours to unlock everything in Call of Duty (aside the superflous prestige-linked unlocks), which is vastly less than Garden Warfare, these examples provide testament to the statement that the game was 'built for microtransactions'. That aside, the notion that 'other games are doing it too', thereby makes it an acceptable practice is faulty logic, and the product of an availability heuristic.

3. The notion that having to progressively unlock everything makes the game in some way more enjoyable is entirely a personal preference. A subjective quality that's an interaction between individual differences and the games presentation. Whilst you are satiated by increasing the numbers on arbitrary experience bars in order to be spoonfed content, it does not represent any aspect of the gameplay. If we disregard these subjective preferences in favour of a more objective view, then having more content at any one time presents the player with more choice, and in turn a better game for the consumer.

The notion of 'hitting a wall' after a few hours is a testament to your own attention span. If you believe you would find the game unenjoyable if you weren't being strung along by unlockables, then why play at all? You don't appreciate a game for it's gameplay, you appreciate the dopamine release that's provided courtesy of the overt reward system.

Those aspects of your argument aside I can agree with you to some extent, that the present microtransactions do lend themselves to accessibility within these online competative environments. Allowing people that don't have the time, or ability to catch up to others with either more time or skill is a good option. I think a happy medium would be to include an entirely set of options for split/screen and LAN play, where these unlockables are all available. That way everyone could enjoy all of the games content and far longer than EA continue support for the title, but the progression system that you and others enjoy within online multiplayer would still be retained.

admiralvic2487d ago

What a shock, you just want to be right...

1) Must we argue semantics? You know what I was going for the colloquial meaning and it's also an important distinction to make. Characters are a more substantial part of the game than say a skin and no matter how much you may want the "X-Ray gun skin," most would probably agree they would just deal with not having it than buy countless coins in an effort to get it. Thus the need for the microtransactions is reduced and if anything, shows the game is not geared towards microtransactions. If it was then you would get repeats and it could take thousands of hours and countless dollars to simply unlock everyone like it does in a lot of free to play games.
2) I brought it up because you SINGLED Garden Warfare out. It isn't unique and many other games put content behind grinds that take countless hours to accomplish. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I am saying you should either call EVERYONE out or call NO ONE out. I mean, the sole basis this is wrong shouldn't be because they offer microtransactions.
3) I'm not sure if I would say it makes the game more enjoyable, but I would say always having a goal / something to work for makes the game more exciting (at least for me). I suppose you can call this subjectivity, though yours is just as subjective. With that being said, there really isn't much else to say. I can post my 2 cents on your version of being objective and the rest, but I can tell it's just going to be my opinion vs yours with neither side really agreeing on anything.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2487d ago
Passenger2487d ago

@admiralvic: Just give it up man.. You´re 100% right and we all know it.






Ps.: Some good counter there^^

Keith222487d ago

Got it yesturday and ive spent more time on it that other big titles its fun and a different game I will not be avoiding

MilkMan2487d ago

Your article was the kind of thing that cannot happen in the internet, let alone this site.
Everything you said 100% accurate. However, there are a percentage of gamers that buy without understanding the ramifications to others. I like to think of them as the bad neighbors.

They play their music to loud, the smoke and carry on, not knowing that perhaps they're is a sick neighbor or a child that needs rest. There is a time and place for everything.

Being that we. the consumers lack a strong and unifying voice in this industry it is imperative that we communicate not just ranting on the web, but with our buying decisions.
FUN, should not be the deciding and sole factor in what you buy...when clearly the publishers intent was not to provide you with fun. It was to maximize profits and keep control of what you bought well within their realm.

These fun seekers are the same gamers that spend $40 for 2 hour demos. Pay EA for exclusive rights to demos, buy games like the one you write about here. That live on their servers and they can one day pass by and unplug when they wish. At the end of the day it would have been free money you gave them...regardless of fun. What do you, the gamer own? When you talk about the fun times good luck recreating them since you cant, its just data bits taking space in your HD.

Now most of these gamers will cry and tell you if you cant afford it then you shouldn't be playing...things like that. I'm 42. I been employed consistently since I was 14. I make over 100k. I buy what I want and in fact I have a list of all the games I will be buying this fall. Its about 25. I have enough games and systems that I know I will not complete in my lifetime.

I am a hobbyists to heart.
However, I am vigilant in what I buy and how I buy it. Since I know that a person like me, with my spending habits will send a resounding vibration to publishers. I worry for those gamers that work harder than I do and wait patiently for the one or two games a year.

If through my actions ive decimated their gaming experience then I am a piece of garbage. No doubt about it.
If somehow I gave the impression that DLC is OK, not true expansions, that micro-transactions are OK and so on, then I am the culprit.

But I know I am not.
I don't buy DLC. I don't own any "games" on my phone. My phone is for talking not playing.

I don't even want to be in the same room with games that have any IAP. I loved Sim City but I could not abide by what EA did last time with the series so I stayed away.
Same for the The Settlers

I do my part.

But as you can see....I am in the minority. Please don't take anything that is said here to heart. Thank you for sharing some sense. You've brought a smile at least to this old gamers face.

Their is still hope.

ChronoJoe2487d ago (Edited 2487d ago )

Thank you, I'm glad someone shares my perspective. My opinion is not quite as extreme as your own, I have some tolerance for downloadable content, but I think ideals of online only, and microtransaction based games most certainly represent poor value for money for the consumer.

Of course, as you so rightly say most don't seem to care. They enjoy the game for it's gameplay and indeed a game like Plants Vs Zombies Garden Warfare is most certainly fun. However like yourself I fear that several years down the line consumers will have nothing to show for their positive experience with the game, and that is perhaps my largest concern.

With classics like Megaman, Mario 64 or Crash Bandicoot, the cartridges still work, Halo 2 you can still play with even a large group of friends thanks to its lan support, however consumers of games like Garden Warfare will be left with absolutely nothing. EA will simply pack up and move on when they've ran the games consumerbase dry, and then it's all over, nothing to show for either your time, or money expended on the experience.

MilkMan2487d ago

Now, if only we could make our brothers and sisters understand this. Soon their "collection" will consist of nothing. Just an empty wallet.
Then you'll gets lots of "how did this happen?" "When did this happen?" "I never asked for this!" and all kinds of interesting anecdotes and rants to supplant the ever popular - "if you didn't want it, you never should have bought it" argument.

Yet, they would have been the main culprits of this sitcom.

There are others that have raised their voice against this type of thing. The Final Bossman also mentioned this and pre-ordering follies.

Our numbers a re few and my HOPE is that in the future we will be heard. To much immaturity in this hobby of ours to be taken seriously by the masses.

Tell this story to anyone else and they'd laugh in our faces. Even a leased car get you another better one when you and IF you want it. Not just simply a cancellation of contract and sent home packing.

Show all comments (19)