That's why steam reviews are better with it being from actual people who aren't scared of being blacklisted from future access. Even with joke reviews it's still actually more informative. These review outlets call it review bombing, but I call it review awareness with it highlighting and bringing attention to things paid reviewers neglect and ignore.
this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
413 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
10671 readers
336 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't blame the reviewers for reviewing the product they were given. I blame Capcom for the bait and switch, and the editors who won't edit the review to reflect the current reality
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Spoilers: they won't.
Spoilers: they shouldn't. They actually reviewed the game and didn't circlejerk about one completely optional feature.
I think the whole game should be reviewed and that includes the microtransactions. There's a reason they add them after the reviews are in because they know people don't like to be nickel and dimed in a game that costs 60 to 70 fucking dollars.
Hey wise guy. I have this amazing solution for that. It's called not fucking buying them. People are losing their shit about this, yet helldivers 2 does the exact same thing and no one gives a shit.
Oh I'm sorry, I guess I should be grateful that a 70 dollar unoptimized game from a multi-million dollar company has microtransactions. I don't care what mental gymnastics you come up with, they have no place in paid games.
load more comments
(13 replies)
Ah yes, cause not paying for them will magically make the game not be designed to try and push you to buy them.
load more comments
(3 replies)
except the version of the game they reviewed allegedly didn't have the micro-transactions/paywalls
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Oh good, one more AAA I can auto-skip over.
Did you know you can block publishers on Steam?
load more comments
(3 replies)
ITT: Mental Gymnastics competition to see how well one can defend corporate greed
Nobody wants to admit they've been taken for a ride.
Mark Twain said it best: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Useful idiot is the norm for this generation.
load more comments
(5 replies)
From the comments here I can see we learned nothing from Horse Armour.
I'm gonna paste a comment I left the other day pertaining to this:
I will die on the hill of "Oblivion's horse armor DLC was not the beginning of micro transactions"
Because it wasn't. There were micro transactions for games long before the hore armor thing. Also, horse armor was a one-time purchase for that mechanic.
load more comments
(16 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
"[...]these micotransactions grant more frequent access to features many gamers deem essential for any action RPG. This includes fast travel and character customisation."
Wait, what? Seriously devs?
the key phrase there being 'more frequent'. the fast travel and character customization are all in the game and have a more in-universe integration. the game systems are supposed to be more immersive than just click the map and fast travel. you typically either take a cart from town to town or warp using a stone that gets used up.
I like it the way it is, makes leaving town to quest and adventure have another layer of strategy. If someone wants to bypass that strategy layer with money then so be it. I certainly would prefer that it be a mod rather than a MTX, and will definitely not be buying any regardless.
Nah, this is inherently scummy behavior.
Want to enforce a particular tone and strategic layer to a game by limiting fast travel based on a consumable? Cool. Just don't make that a consumable that can be purchased with real dollars.
I like it the way it is, makes leaving town to quest and adventure have another layer of strategy. If someone wants to bypass that strategy layer with money then so be it. I certainly would prefer that it be a mod rather than a MTX, and will definitely not be buying any regardless.
This has been solved for a long time. If you want to force people to leave the town to quests and adventure just stick to Morrowind style fast travel where fast travel doesn't go everywhere. If you want people to be able to fast travel everywhere then let them fast travel everywhere. If people can fast travel everywhere but don't want to fast travel everywhere then it's a single player game, they're free to make up their own rules on how they want to play.
There's no justifiable reason to slap a price tag on fast travel and that's the issue most people have. The fact that it was removed from review builds shows that even the devs know how fucking shitty it is. No need to defend a shitty practice.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
"Jeez Capcom, leave some evil for the rest of us!" - Satan probably
Mixed feelings about that - it sounds like you can still access those features so I don't think it really affects the base game at all. From what I remember about the first game, you had to be sparing on the waystones to start with, and it required a bit of work to get the item necessary to redo your character - so not much has really changed there. On the other hand, adding these microtransactions in the first place is a stupid idea and the publishers are shooting themselves in the foot by adding them. Should that really change the reviews of the base game though?
Having limited access to a resource to then hook you on microtransactions is from mobile game design. It's literally a freemium mechanic being put into an already upscaled price game.
It's one of the most abusive and addictive ways to develop a game, and you want to portray that positively.
I fucking hate gamers. We've been having this conversation since the horse Armor DLC for Oblivion yet here we fucking are.
Correct, it’s part of their design, you create a problem then You sell the solution.
Except having limited access to a resource is from the original game. There's this lie being sold online that it was an intentional decision for DD2 to try and sell more microtransactions, but limited fast travel is a hallmark of the original Dragon's Dogma. People are so quick to blind themselves to hatred that they haven't noticed that Capcom has added completely pointless microtransactions to every one of their games for at least the past 5 years. You can drag them through the coals if you want to over that, and it's as fair a reason to boycott Capcom games as any, but it's not a reason to start going after games journalists.
Except having limited access to a resource is from the original game.
The original game that ultimately saw success in its "Dark Arisen" release that had an eternal ferrystone.
Don't go trying to redefine history here, I played both copies of the original.
There's this lie being sold online that it was an intentional decision for DD2 to try and sell more microtransactions, but limited fast travel is a hallmark of the original Dragon's Dogma.
There is no lie in the complaints. Ferrystones are not a limited resource in Dragons Dogma 2. You just have to pay microtransactions for it. You are lying about the game to defend it. To me, this level of denial comes off as coping.
I want you to admit that ferrystones are not a limited resource in Dark Arisen and same with Dragons dogma 2. And I want you to admit the differences in how they are offered to the player.
Or go lie to somebody else.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I kinda think we should go right off and bomb all the reviews, with the hope that it teaches devs to stop doing stuff like this.
Dark patterns are malicious and antagonistic against the end user. The microtransactions add arsenic to the tea.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Aside from the controversy, why does every medieval game look as ugly as oblivion?
Because they're old-tymey. Everything was sepia tinted and muddy back then, and they didn't have fancy dyes or expensive rendering software to make many polygons.
We tried this already - getting ethics in game journalism.
It didn't work so well.
Can't tell if you're joking or not, but gamergate was absolutely not about "ethics in game journalism."
load more comments
(3 replies)
Gran Turismo 7 pulled the same shit. I'm still pissed about that one. Plus the lack of single player content basically means I haven't even played the game since shortly after launch. The grind without mtx is crazy boring.
It's not going to change much.
It's crazy dumb they created the controversy but the game is fully complete and excellent.
It's insane they didn't see this blowing up in their faces 🤦♂️.
load more comments
(2 replies)
They say in the article that reviewers were told about the microtransactions. Then they mention that one reviewer said he didn't read the notes that were sent by Capcom. Why would this reviewer need to go back and rescore the game? If he enjoyed it without knowing about the microtransactions, they clearly don't matter to the gameplay.
The review copies had no microtransactions. They were added at release.
That's my point. Reviewers gave it great scores when there weren't any microtransactions and they haven't changed anything in the game to make those microtransactions important. You can play the game the exact same way the reviewers did by just ignoring them.
~~You misunderstand, the mtx were essentially unlocked in the reviewers versions, not simply missing features. ~~
Edit: apparently my last edit didn't get submitted somehow, but I'm sorry about being misinformed and unintentionally spreading it. What I was told was wrong as it was spin that I read of what did happen: the those features were unlocked in the reviews… because they're in the game, this was conveniently left out. Then I misread that as the games otherwise not having those features.
I haven't seen anything that has said that. I couldn't find that in the article either.
Edit: I don't care about the downvotes, but surely one of you could've replied with a link showing me where it says that reviewers had the mtx unlocked for them while reviewing.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Care to provide sources? I had a press preview of the game before release and nothing changed in my version, so I REALLY wonder where you get that information from.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›