Top
580°

The Division has 'optional in-game purchases'

The Division is up in the PlayStation Store with some interesting information. Ubisoft's online third-person shooter will feature 'optional in-game purchases' according to the store page.

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.nl
The story is too old to be commented.
DarkOcelet2084d ago (Edited 2084d ago )

Typical Ubisoft. It would not be a Ubisoft game without those Microtransactions. Its bad enough it has s Season Pass, why add this $hit?

The same will defintely come to Watch Dogs 2, For Honor and Ghost Recon Wildlands.

Sigh.

-Foxtrot2084d ago

I have a feeling this game is going to be a letdown

Whether or not reviewers say anything is a totally different story. Even with Unity and Rainbow Six they were too nice and gave them the benefit of the doubt in some places...they didn't really go into the problems and even the reviews which did the number never always reflected on it.

DarkOcelet2084d ago

Remember what happened with Evolve?

It was littered with dlc everywhere and very few reviewers said a thing. And lets not forget that crap big sites like IGN gave it a 9/10.

I wont be surprised if the industry crashed on itself soon.

WellyUK2084d ago

Rainbow six micro-transaction don't impact on any part of the gameplay so it shouldn't impact at all on the review score of the game. Skins are fine, if you don't like skins then aim your hate at CS and Dota as they are the flagships of this practice.

Blastoise2084d ago (Edited 2084d ago )

@WellyUK

I don't agree with the "Microtransactions are fine as long as they are skins and cosmetic items" logic.

You know what? I actually like unlocking skins and cosmetics in my £40 games without spending anymore money

Seafort2084d ago

"Professional" reviewers aren't important in the long run.

Look what happened to Evolve. It was rated quite high by these so-called pro reviewers but the gaming community shunned the game because of the mass amount of DLCs.

If the microtransactions are detrimental to the game Ubisoft will soon know about it from gamers that bought the game and are now getting a refund or trading it in.

Mr Pumblechook2084d ago

"Optional in-game purchases?" Thank God for that. And there was me worrying that they'd be adding microtransactions!

Griever2084d ago

I remember the days when Ubisoft was respectable similar to how CDProject or Naughty Dog is today. The era when they released Prince of Persia Sands of Time, Splinter Cell and Beyond Good and Evil. Everybody loved them for their high quality games. These days they are just another greedy corporation looking to squeeze as much money out of gamers as possible. The only recent modern game by them that I loved was Child of Light. Valiant Hearts could be another but I that is still in my backlogue so cant say.

fiveby92084d ago

And I was looking forward to The Division but this leaves me with a bad feeling. I dislike in game transactions.

I don't generally trust 'reviews' by many sites such as IGN or others. Remember that these sites derive revenue from advertisements by publishers. Gaming websites do not want to risk biting the hand that feeds them. So take that into consideration when reading reviews. It's an example why magazines like Consumer Reports do not have paid advertising. It's not that they get paid off at gaming sites but the 'editorial board' I am sure does consider carefully what they say about their advertiser's products.

zidane13412084d ago

I doubt it, the alpha was really fun.

RedDevils2084d ago

I've a feeling this game gonna be suck B! lol all these negativity just keep building before the release won't help the game either.

rocketpanda2084d ago

@wellyUK,

Stupid comparison, Dota and CS are free games. Their business model rely on microtransactions. You expect free games to make money from nothing?

AAA games with microtransactions have no place. Yeah sure it's only skins or cosmetics....for now. Once everyone becomes comfortable with that you can bet they will start charging for actual content that impacts games.

Impact on the games or not, the fact the Ubisoft seems to be putting microtransactions in every game now shows where's the market heading, better get your wallets ready because they will Nicole and dime you at every opportunity.

Oh you want to fast travel, ok that'll be 20ubi coins please. Oh you don't have any, don't worry we can sell you some or you could just walk to the location which will take 30 minutes. Oh, you want to build this weapon, ok that's another 20coins to build it immediately. Don't have have coins, well it will take 6 hours to build the weapon without coins even though you have all the parts to make it.

BG115792084d ago

It getting harder and harder to give the benifit of doubt to Ubisoft.
I know one must try and play the game to judge, but yeah, this kind of practices on a persistent online game, sounds really likepay-to-win in a full fledge AAA game that had already a season pass...

Lamboomington2083d ago (Edited 2083d ago )

@DarkOcelet

That's why we thankfully have Totalbiscuit and AngryJoe and the like, who focus on these things.
The reality of it is that those big sites don't make large use of things like

-game length
-replayability
-amount of content
-things like linearity, in itself
-price
-presence of micro-transactions.

Atleast from what I've seen. In a way it's good, because you review every game for what it is. The problem is you end up often overlooking really bad problems that consumers will have with the product.

Even if you look at something like The Order - I get that there was a shitshow and bashing and all that "3 hour Linear QTE Shitfest" but Most of that was from the fanboy war. If you actually look at the reviews from sites like IGN though ? They hardly even mention game length, linearity in itself, QTE in itself. Which is a good thing. They try to review the game for what it is, and it makes sense. Saying a game sucks purely because it's linear, short and has QTEs is stupid.

At the same time, as in the case with Evolve, they go too far and end up ignoring glaring faults in value for money, anti-consumer practices with DLC and content etc. As a result, the average consumer doesn't get the 9/10 experience they thought they would.

In the case of Unity, the broken state of the game wasn't given enough importance in the reviews.

ChronoJoe2083d ago (Edited 2083d ago )

@Foxtrot

In my review of Siege I feel that I detailed the games technical problems and docked the score appropriately.

http://vgfirst.com/rainbow-...

Maybe some people just really like the game. Underneath the technical issues Siege is actually a really unique and compelling tactical fps experience, in my opinion. I don't think I under-emphasized technical issues at all, reducing the score from 9 to 7 as a result of the games problems.

You use these blanket statements like 'they were too nice' as if you have an objective metric of what the game should have been scored, or how affected people should be by specific issues.

"Unfortunately however, some of Siege’s enjoyment is undermined by its technical issues. It wouldn’t be an online game without it’s share of them, but it could be said that Siege has more than its fair share. Disconnections, parties disbanding, matchmaking flat out not working, ranked reconnections not working. Anything related to the games netcode, doesn’t work at one point or another. It’s not a persistent enough of a problem that it prevents you from having a good time, as once you’re in a lobby, the experience is usually very smooth, but the excessive amount of time it can take to successfully find a match with your party can be tremendously off-putting. Indeed, it could even be argued that these problems are entirely unacceptable in a game whose focus focus is clearly fixated onto online multiplayer."

You sit on these forums detached from any consideration to the effort that critiques often put into their reviews and content. Throwing sweeping statements that effectively brandishing everyone as hacks, as if they have some form disingenuous agenda, whereas I do not believe that to be the case at all. Many reviewers have a genuine intention to evaluate the game to the best of their ability and with Siege sitting around 7 on metacritic I don't think they have done that poorly.

Have you even played the game?

@Lamboomington

Are you serious? The Order sits on a low 6 on metacritic. There were plenty of critics that blasted it for its length and linearity.

While a 6 may not seem as low as you perhaps think it deserves, the median for video games sits around 7, so you can get a good estimation of a video games quality when you consider how games and their critical scores distribute around that mean score. i.e. The Order was met with a worse than average reception.

Tyralun2083d ago

Without going into details (NDA) the alpha was pretty much everything I'd hoped for, it's a great glitch-free game.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 2083d ago
glassgannon9092084d ago (Edited 2084d ago )

online only- check
multiplayer focused - check
microtransactions - check
downgrade - check

its a sad day when you realize the only non shitty product from ubisoft in this year is gonna be southpark game(hopefully)

ac is already on the path to its demise
far cry will start to follow after primal(looks to be one of the most shameless rehashes ever)
division's hype has died down massively in the past two years...
its sad.
they used to be one of the best publishers during the ps2/ps3 transition era... and now theyre giving ea a run for their money..

user99502792084d ago

"online only- check
multiplayer focused - check "

And to you these are.... bad things?

lol

"downgrade - check"

-.-

ninsigma2084d ago

What's the problem with it being online only and multiplayer?? Its a brand new game, it can be whatever it wants to be. Diversity is how the industry thrives.

The 10th Rider2084d ago

Eh, I believe south park is being handled by a different developer than last time, so keep expectations in check.

MONOLITHICIDE2084d ago (Edited 2084d ago )

Ninsigma,
Uh what. Hows is it diverse to be almost like all other games today , online only\ multiplayer. No one buys the diverse games.

Pongwater2084d ago

"Hows is it diverse to be almost like all other games today , online only\ multiplayer"

That's a huge exaggeration. All games aren't online only multiplayer, in fact most aren't.

zidane13412084d ago

Build a bridge and get over it. The alpha was really fun.

2083d ago
+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2083d ago
user99502792084d ago

Rainbow Six has optional in-game purchases, and it doesn't negatively impact the experience one bit.

Division looks flippen awesome from what I've seen. I expect all the usual suspects to make a big stink about downgrades and microtransactions... knowing that most of those people wouldn't touch this game regardless.

zidane13412084d ago

I personally loved the alpha. Pre ordered as soon as it was over.

2083d ago
user99502792083d ago

Luckily I am not concerned for the industry as a whole or any other scare-tactic slippery slope BS you care to pedal.

And Rainbow Six a "BS" game.... lol. Get over yourself kiddo. Best game last year.

2083d ago
user99502792083d ago

god forbid anyone enjoy games you dont approve of! View must be awful nice from way up there on your pedestal.

I'm sure the sorts of games that you love to play are super special. =p

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2083d ago
ziggurcat2084d ago

there hasn't been a single game, to my knowledge, where MTs have directly affected ones ability to play/achieve 100% completion.

i don't agree with them being in the game, but they are optional, and i simply ignore the fact that they're there. they have never prevented me from enjoying any game that has ever implemented these types of transactions. the only time MTs should ever be an issue for anyone is if they are required in order to progress through the game. it is absolutely senseless to complain about something that has 100% optional.

Kalebninja2084d ago

Typical ubisoft? Every company has micro transactions including naughty dog, rockstar, rocksteady, Microsoft, blizzard, bungie, konami, insomniac, activision, EA and Nintendo.

Artemidorus2084d ago

I think that's the ehole point, anyone who supports it really are ill educated

user99502792084d ago

@Artemidorus

Adversely, I think that people who go on self-satisfied opportunistic tyraids are dumb as bricks. There is a happy medium that these people are too blind and angry to consider.

Spoonsx2084d ago (Edited 2084d ago )

+1 to you sir. lol @Kalebninja

UnHoly_One2084d ago (Edited 2084d ago )

It's not just Ubisoft, almost everyone is adding this stuff to their games. I don't like them any more than you do, so I just don't buy them. I'm playing AC: Syndicate right now and I haven't even spent any of my free money they gave me. No reason to, I'd rather just play the game.

The market will decide if these stay or go. If people are buying them we'll start seeing them in every game. If not, they'll go away.

The one thing that will NOT help at all is complaining about it.

REDGUM2084d ago

I wonder if one of the microtranactions allows for "A graphics upgrade, as seen in our 2013 trailer".

jmac532084d ago

I like the model that Rainbow Six has. There are microtransactions for skins but most everything can be unlocked with in game currency including the new operators. Ubisoft makes money off the fools while the player base doesn't get separated from the DLC.

2083d ago
hiredhelp2084d ago

COD has MT in the game too its becomming the norm remember dead space 3 EA.

Monduu2084d ago

This is why I've bought 0 game this gen, I hate incomplete. At an avrg of 70$ CAD I sure as Hell expect a COMPLETE product or no purchase.

showtimefolks2084d ago

Don't worry dark

This game won't be doing well.

Ubi are the new EA of gaming

Paytaa2084d ago

And I was genuinely excited for whatever the next Splinter Cell is since I haven't played the series in what feels like forever but since Ubisoft plagues literally ALL of their games with microtransactions it's going to suffer the same way.

I can't support them as a company anymore to be honest. Ubisoft was once home to some of my favorite games and they've single-handedly murdered all of their franchises, at least that's how I lookk at it.

EyeAmTJ2084d ago

cause Ubisoft the only game company that has Micro-transactions in it right. SMH

KwietStorm_BLM2084d ago

I have no love lost with Ubisoft, but this sure as hell is not a "typcial Ubisoft" thing. This is an industry thing, and that much is clear at this point. But if this actually turns out to lean more on the MMO side that they've been saying, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

Phunkydiabetic12084d ago ShowReplies(1)
Spenok2084d ago

Why does everyone see Microtransactions as a bad thing? First off, let me say I never have, and never will purchase them, however. They rarely are a game breaking addition. Literally the only game(s) I can think of that is a make or break experience is in cell phone games like Clash of Clans and so on. MGSV had them and that game is amazing, Uncharted 4 will have them, and I SERISOULY doubt that game will suffer because of it. Halo 5 had them, same deal, Rainbow Six Siege, Destiny, pretty much every MMO ever, and there are some amazingly fantastic ones available regardless of that fact, and so on and so forth.

What I'm trying to say is, you can play these games and NEVER know they were ever available. Sure, some games they aren't implemented very well and end up allowing users with more money to be overpowered, however, most people don't have that kind of money, and they are a minority you almost never see.

They really don't ruin many gaming experiences. Nor do they make enough of an impact on said experience to change it much for most users.

Do I like them? No, but I know how to move on from something that will NOT go away, because SOME people choose to spend their money how they want, it gets the developers more money (which I support, because they provide me with the gaming experiences I know and love). More or less, it's economy 101, people want it, so people will supply it. I'm sorry that's just how it works.

pumpactionpimp2084d ago

Because your paying for a game, and often paying for dlc. But the current trend has you paying for a game that usually has half or less the Content. Then purchasing a dlc or pass that costs almost the equivalent of the game. Then instead of unlocking stuff through progression like the good old days, they wall that off and charge you for it.

Yes some times it has no effect on actual gameplay. But multiplayer games especially, make you aware of all the customization options. Then you buy the game and find you have to pay more for them. It's a little sickening.

Yes I'm aware I don't have to purchase anything. So I often dont, starting with the game it's self. Which is sad, I really wanted this game.

2083d ago
TheSaint2084d ago

Annnnnd I've just gone a bit flaccid.

Jaces2084d ago

Well, this one just dropped down to my bargain bin pile. Thanks Ubi!

uth112083d ago

As opposed to which major publish who doesn't do these things?

princejb1342083d ago

That's why I am optionally not buying this game. Is not like Ubisoft games have been any good this gen anyway

+ Show (17) more repliesLast reply 2083d ago
jordanign2084d ago (Edited 2084d ago )

It's in English now, thanks.

Neonridr2084d ago

As long as it is not pay to win garbage then I don't care if they want to sell optional player or weapon skins.

DarkOcelet2084d ago

You should seriously care mate. The way the industry is heading, it wont be long till we see MT actually affecting the AAA games all around.

Neonridr2084d ago

Oh I am on the anti-microtransactions boat, believe me. But we can't just outright stop microtransactions. As long as there is no sort of pay mechanic to do better in the game or win easier, then I don't care if people want to spend their own money on frivolous, cosmetic things in the game that mean nothing in the end.

Take Destiny for example. If they want to offer up that Silver so that you can buy things like emotes, emblems or shaders, then fine. So be it. But as soon as you can buy weapons or gear from vendors using real money, I am done with the game.

thekhurg2084d ago

Zero reason to care. Skins are unimportant and do not impact the game at all.

Games are expensive to make and if they need to sell some optional, non-impactful stuff to people to help recoup those expenses, then go for it.

_-EDMIX-_2084d ago

The market will adjust to such changes if its really not wanted by the majority. Its pretty clear, if it works....it will get used more, if it doesn't....it won't.

Its as simple as don't buy it. MT don't effect me playing a game as I don't complain about what I'm not getting, I merely play what I was expecting to play and focus on the core concept vs nit picking about stupid items and costumes.

Its legit not that big of a deal, mind you the money coming from those items are keeping many studios open and helping keep the cost of games around the same price.

I don't buy them, but I'm actually glad someone is, I'd rather they make money an optional way vs charging more money for the base game.

I'm not in the um "anti-micotransaction boat" I"m merely in the, I don't buy them, but don't care that they exist boat.

Why is it folks on here cry so much on stuff they are not getting free? Buddy...I just don't care, I'm in it to play the game from start to finish, a weapon or costume etc as MT means next to nothing to me as I'm not going to buy it and it doesn't effect my overall game.

Thats like saying I played the original Code Veronica, loved it....but suddenly I should be mad years later because Code Veronica X added more stuff.

Sooooooooooo we just basing all our energy on what we are not getting vs what the main damn point of the game is?

Glass half empty concept I suppose, but I don't let such stupid things effect how I feel about the over all game, it legit just sounds like cry baby bs to me. A game is always going to have some sort of extra, if you can't deal with that, something is really, really wrong with some of you.

DLConspiracy2084d ago

You're right, but if they don't add optional stuff like this then we might see a price jump for games overall. Everything to me seems to point to that way. I wouldn't be surprised if games next gen will cost $10 US more. So I'm cool with that.

Rainbow Six Siege doesn't really bother me because it's just stupid stuff that only impulse people buy. It doesn't bother me but covers that bit of cost for them. I feel like most game companies are more aware than the publishers about how people feel about MT.

So will it be better to have the option or pay more for games overall"? It's hard to say. We do have half complete games like Destiny who charge for DLC to make it better IMO.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2084d ago
user99502792084d ago

YOU CARE NOW!

The future is a dark and desolate place unless you leave snarky comments in comment sections in 100% of cases, no matter how insignificant. If you dont complain about the things I complain about then I'm afraid we cant be friends anymore.

Relientk772084d ago

Meh, didn't want this game anyway

slate912084d ago

But uncharted and halo both have MT that arent going to be detrimental to the overall game. I share your frustration but I feel like if done correctly it wont have a negative impact.

_-EDMIX-_2084d ago

Agreed. Mind you, this game is MP only, its an online MMO, of course its going to have MT items, but they are optional so I don't really care either way.

I'm getting Division for its core concept, others getting MT doesn't really bother me.

Artemidorus2084d ago

Spoken like a modern day ill educated gamer.

ScorpiusX2084d ago (Edited 2084d ago )

Let me put it this way, you view things how you want to view them and i will view things my way. As for this fight against MT good luck.

Fez2084d ago

Yay, sounds like fun. I'm going to purchase something to increase my levels of fun. Hopefully they make me wait for it to unlock once purchased to add more value.

I used to hate when options were given to you right out of the box in games. Remember how rubbish cheat codes were? Or how totally lame just being given character or gun customization was? No fun at all.

CaptainObvious8782084d ago

I find it curious that a lot of MS "fans" have no problem with MTs.

Very curious.

ScorpiusX2084d ago

Why none of the MT sold since their creation have never altered the game itself , they have been cosmetic , add-ons.
simple stuff that some would rather buy than spend all day rinsing and repeating in a game . Simply put its an option not for everyone but still an option for those that want it .

As for me i like options...