- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
I guess this is probably going to be the new shitty norm with bait and switch for reviews then nickel and dime afterwards.
You must log in or register to comment.
Adding micro transactions after release is bullshit. There should be rules where it needs to be in from release or not.
Right. Some people wouldn’t bother with a game at all if they knew there would be this. It’s very deceptive.
Knowing they were charging for new characters was almost a dealbreaker for me. This would have stopped me if I had known.
Paying extra for characters IS a deal breaker for me in fighting games. It’s literally pay to win.
That said, I’ve been playing Tekken since ps1, so I’ll probably just pirate this whenever it’s available.
Wait until the reviews are out so people can‘t be warned, and the product can’t be dunked on and then…
Exactly. If they’d announced this before launch, it would’ve been the only thing anyone talked about. There would have been a huge backlash and I’m sure a good percentage of the community would’ve dumped the series there and then.
This is doubly scummy. Glad I didn’t buy it yet.
If they place something behind MTs, then I completely agree. But, if they want to add more cosmetics that don’t exist yet, and they finance it MTs, and at a fair price, it’s less unethical.
Announcing it after reviews… Hm. Sketchy at best.
If you tried the customisation, it feels extremely bare bones in comparison to Tekken 7. So I wouldn’t be surprised if stuff was removed to add to the Store.
TF2?
but tbf that basically invented the lootbox which then made TF2 free to play
At least they made it free to play. These games are still charging full price plus microtransactions
TF2 was a better experience before it went free-to-play. I want a barrier that keeps the hordes of clueless children out.
TF2 before F2P was one of, if not the, best multiplayer games. It just wasn’t the same after that and good community servers died out.
Adding shit to a game with a patch, post purchase, doesn’t require you to partake. While I hate MTX as much as anyone, you aren’t required to buy anything. Sure, this is enshittification, but you can avoid that buy buying games that aren’t “always online”.
Just another lesson to wait months after a games release before even considering it.
Early access paranoia can finally be shared by all~ Yippeeeeeeee
I don’t buy games until the publisher announces it will be delisted.
Review Bomb it on steam
Fuckers waited until the high praise reviews were in
Gaming publications should automatically retroactively set their score to 0 in this case.
On the one hand I agree, it was obviously a calculated move to bait sales before microtransactions were added, which is incredibly scummy. But on the other hand, if a game reviewer gave it a certain score before microtransactions were added and nothing was altered/removed from the experience that was originally reviewed, I guess I don’t see the problem with the score they assigned at the time (assuming it was reviewed in good faith).
You can install it out of the box and disable game updates and not see any microtransactions, which will let you play it exactly as it was when it was first reviewed. You won’t get to do any online play, but I guess the bigger takeaway in that case is that any game which relies on online/live service elements for continued engagement needs to have a big fucking “CAVEAT EMPTOR” on every review.
To be fair, most games these days have build in update checking, and more and more multiplayer games are always-online-or-piss-off type of games which shoot down your idea. I wish it was still possible in all games, but alas…
Right, but what I was getting at with how prone to change online experiences inherently are, it seems odd to rely on reviews to begin with. Sure I suppose it is irresponsible for a publication to make claims about the quality of an online experience, knowing that there is no guarantee of consistency over time, but the customer also shouldn’t approach any online/live service experience with an expectation of consistency, because change is inherent to the model. Enjoy it while it lasts if it is fun, but again, caveat emptor.
The feeling of betrayal people have about online experiences is thankfully leading to pushback against live service models in general. Too many companies out there doing bait and switch bullshit.
If a game like Tekken happens to have a solid campaign and fun local multiplayer, I would be okay with leaving a good review up, because that is pretty much all that would have been reviewed ahead of time before there were other players to do online modes with. If a publication has a specific “no microtransactions” criteria, though, then I suppose they can do whatever they like afterwards. But anyone should be able to still obtain the day 1 version of the game and play it offline if you don’t like the direction they went with its updates. You might just need to be more creative on PC to find them.
Divided? One must be pretty naive if they can’t see the move they are trying to pull here.
Can’t wait for f2p Project L to break into the genre and become the biggest and most popular fighting game.
I mean you’ve got people who are defending Bilzzard’s newest horse armor bullshit so yeah.
ETA: Yup, got quite a few Hardcore Gamers^TM in the thread defending this BS already with ‘it’s just cosmetics’, all fighting games do it, or won’t someone think of the devs, like like they think the developers are getting a cut off the money.
Just sad frogs sitting in the boiling water.
Yeah, you can find vocal people who will play the apologist for just about anything, it‘s baffling to the degree that I wonder if there‘s paid actors on social media in this sense
Definitely paid actors. These companies all have social media teams. It’s not improbable that they create fake personal accounts to post apologist bs.
They also can buy sock puppet accounts and use those.
I’m a real, human, unpaid “apologist” for DLC like this presented in Tekken 8 - AMA
Gaming “journalism” can’t afford outright say “company deliberately tries to hide enshittification of their game” aloud. Might lose that access to selective early copies for review!
Can’t wait for F2P game from the company probably MOST known for in game shops??
Project L will not use LoL but Valorant as base.
Riot is a fan of fomo and high pricess.
Bait and switch. That’s the move.
What do you mean “new shitty norm”? Companies have been doing that for years already. First time I saw it around 2017 I think. I not sure about the game, but I think it was Call of Duty.
From what i gather, they waited until after the reviews were in. They got a good score, which i guess would have been impacted by the inclusion of microtransactions, and released them after the reviews were in. Sounds like they were trying to avoid the bad press they would have gotten for including them (or perhaps purchases even, from people starkly against the practice)
Bamco knows bikini skins of their characters are gonna sell like hotcakes.
That being said, I’ll forgive them if they only release a Kazuya bikini skin with jiggle physics for his pecs.
It already was, activision and capcom both did that, and no, cheat DLCs aren’t accessibility, cheats should be free like they were back in the ps2 days and earlier.
So, is this game DOA?
No, we’re taking about Tekken. DOA has shitty mtx problems of its own.
Badum tis.
DOA
Badum tits*
10/10
I wish more players would just ignore these cosmetic microtransactions and go with the default skin or at least limit themselves to ones that can be obtained by actually achieving something in the game. Using default skin while outplaying people in competitive games could probably induce some people to make quite salty comments.
Called it.
Sickening.
