One of the biggest TV and movie tropes in the last decade has been the multiverse, the idea of exploring multiple dimensions to uncover alternate versions of existing ideas. From both a business and creative perspective, it makes sense why established franchises are shaking things up in this way.
However, there aren't many video games latching on to this trend, as rendering multiple worlds in real-time is a difficult feat and the medium is relatively young in comparison to its contemporaries, making crossover opportunities more difficult. Still, there are a few great titles that manage enough to overcome these challenges, and here are some of the best examples.
Microtransactions have gotten ridiculously overpriced in recent years, with titles now offering cosmetic skins worth more than some games.
The elephant in the room tho is personal accountability. It’s easy (albeit basic) to blame the big, bad corpo, but microtransactions wouldn’t be where they are if gamers didn’t spend money on them. As it stands the MTs usually make more than the game. Publishers know raising game prices will cause backlash, so they do MTs to compensate. But the adult conversation is consumers determine the success of products with their wallets. So if MTs are a huge thing, it’s because we as consumers told them we like them by giving them a lot of money for them. So if you don’t want them to be a thing, convince your fellow gamers to stop buying them and expect that games will be decently more expensive. You all can disagree all you want, but reality is a bitch, and eventually you have to live in it.
Trying to convince people is the least realistic thing. If we are trying to be adults, actual action is what changes things not "convincing campaigns" on platforms owned by the people 'you' are going against. It's madness and idealistic.
Easier said than done. I've told gamers for years to not buy micro transactions, expensive dlc, etc. Gamers bought it anyway. Didn't fit on a DVD that would have fit on a Blu-ray disc.
I also told some gamers to not pay for online like Xbox Live because it would force the rest of the industry to only offer playing online if you pay for it. Told them not to support a broken console that Red Ringed. To not support Xbox One because Microsoft tried to take away game ownership and how you play your games. To not pay for a console by one manufacturer where a, now 3 trillion worth, didn't make enough games at the level of Nintendo or Sony who are worth less money.
How much of that did you support anyway with your money then go back and read your comment again.
yeah that was like telling people not to do drugs or alcohol, these game companies invested a lot of money in researching about how to make people buy MTs, from creating mechanics like loot boxes, purposely make the game grindy, all the way to menu designs and what color and sound effects played when gamers bought MTs.
It was specifically engineered to take advantage of vulnerable and prone to addiction people.
@z2g
People always struggle with issues like drinking, drugs, and gambling. But in games, especially those played by kids, microtransactions are another way companies take advantage of them. It's a problem that needs addressing.
I recommend everyone read this article.
My suggestion is to name these transactions, what they ARE: Hidden-fees.
There never was, the only time I paid for a microtransaction was on Blacklight Retribution (PS4) and it was because I enjoyed the game a lot so I felt the devs should get something for all that entertainment (€5 "membership")
The devs wouldn’t get that though, that shit goes straight to the higher ups who do f*** all let’s be honest.
Probably, but I wasn't as cynical back then and €5 wasn't a big ask to get the guns with grinding instead of renting them, and the game was good (still is on the PS5/4)
I couldn’t believe what Blizzard charged for horse armor and cosmetics in Diablo 4…
I remember back in the day when a season pass was $15 and you got everything included in it. Now, I see them at $60 and you still don’t get everything.
That's just Blizzard. Unlike Bethesda's $0.99 horse armour, Blizzard's first microtransaction, Sparkle Pony, cost $15.
Bethesda out did themselves a few years back with 76. They released a Xmas bundle for half price on day of release! So, was meant to sell for only $12 from day 1, but tried to convince everyone it was half price, by marking it at $24!
As soon as gaming wasn't deemed nerdy anymore, and reached the casuals this happened. We're smart, but casuals play mobile games and other stuff, and don't really have anything to compare. They think gaming is supposed to be like this and pay for in game purchases.
Samus Aran from the Metroid series almost made an appearance in Fortnite, but Nintendo and Epic couldn’t agree on how she’d be implemented.
Gary Green said: Ratchet & Clank is a curious franchise as you never know what will happen next. Back in the PS2 era, we had regular releases featuring full sequels every year or two. It was a schedule which continued into the PS3 era with equally regular releases yet these were often downgraded to budget-priced shorter games or spin-offs. You could tell those creators over at Insomniac were running out of ideas.
While I love someone mentioning Planescape, not really multiverse. Planes and dimensions, yes. But, they are typically their own locations and are very rarely tied to another 'verse' let alone another plane. The only things that are directly tied are the ethereal and material planes. Otherwise, they are dimensions created of their own design and goals by the creator/owner and not comprised of 'their own version of another dimension'.