Marketplace "consumables" unveiled

Batch

Novice Member

MMalik81

Novice Member
are they trying to rob us? buy ingame weapons from marketplace and once you finish the bullets, you have to buy them again. what the fudge are they trying to do. i hope it would not be forcing us to buy them in order to finish games. :(
 

Batch

Novice Member
and what disadvantage would we have on live with people that have purchased better weapons :mad:
 

Tetlee

Distinguished Member
andytabor said:
this is a very bad thing
Agreed, poor way to take peoples money IMO. Wonder if the weapons will laster longer than those in Dead Rising, could cost a fortune :suicide:
 
G

Gazra

Guest
This is really milking the fans and punishing those that cannot afford the extras.Where are the ethics and equility in this.Shame on Microsoft if they go ahead.:nono:
 

Sy1441

Well-known Member
I'd quite happily spunk a sky diver on some sort of heat seeking bullets for my assault rifle on Graw :D
 

ukkev2000

Novice Member
I dunno.. taking PGR2 as an example, the TVR Speed 12 was the reward for completing the game. It's appearance in an online game really meant something as that player had obviously worked damn hard for that car. Respec'

...so when the speed12 came out as one of the DLC's, I happily coughed up my £2 rather than spend two months getting all platinum. Now everyone had speed12s online and the only people who were ratty were the l33ts who'd earned it.

The best solution is to allow purchased content to be turned off in games you create. That way the casual gamer can play with all the fun toys while the l33ts can happily own them by virtue of their better skill, and if you wish to, you can level the playing field. Any proper tournie would want them turned off .

Anyway, I'm off to buy 900g for my Elite Frostsaber, wheres my nearest chinese farmer? :rotfl:

(World Of Warcraft joke)
 

corh5

Active Member
Mattk84 said:
i also think this is a bad idea.we are 1 step away from pay to play gaming.
Agree, be like going to the arcades or playing those crappy games on Sky active.

Very bad idea
 

DarkEntity

Well-known Member
It will be excellent for the people who can afford it, while the poor folk will suffer.

basically you could walk into the shop in Saints row, buy some bloody huge rifles/rocket launchers which no one else has and kick the crap outta everyone :D

sounds good to me lol
 

andytabor

Novice Member
it sounds like a cynical money making ploy, whats next?? having to buy petrol for your cars in project gotham, paying rent for your hideout in gta?? i cant see microsoft getting away with this one. i dont think much of being milked for cash for stuff that could and SHOULD be free.
 

MMalik81

Novice Member
andytabor said:
i dont think much of being milked for cash for stuff that could and SHOULD be free.
Its not free man, WE ALREADY PAID FOR ALL OF IT WHEN WE BOUGHT THE GAME. i hope sony wont do the same. if there is anything like this microsoft going to force on us i will sell and kiss the xbox 360 goodbye. I cant bother paying mortgage for houses in games similar amount to my own motgage.
 

RobDickinson

Well-known Member
This is teh much suckage.

I cant think why anyone would sell a game then sell you time / use limited items in the game and think its going to work.

Its another one of those leveraging your customers for maximum profit things thats just anti consumer and if they do introduce it I may as well switch tho teh " real time weapons switching" console.
 
D

Deleted member 92943

Guest
Microsoft wouldnt do it. They know they would **** off so many people by doing this so i don't think there is anything to worry about
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
This is bad and simply a blatent way of getting even more cash out of people! I guess it's been going on for years in PC MMORPG's where people buy accounts, items/weapons or gold over ebay for real money. You ended up with games becoming actual economies where people who have perhaps got the time to get all these items the legit way can then sell them to rich folk who just want a quick fix solution!

This is slightly different in that you are paying MS or the games developer rather than other players but it's still very wrong. In game items should only be unlocked through gameplay or bought through ingame money. You can see folk becoming addicted to a title and them getting into debt even, just to feed their gaming habit. The whole aspect of bought things running out adds a whole new level of addictiveness to proceedings as people will want to rebuy the cool stuff once they've got used to having it and it runs out! It could end up being as big a problem amongst some gamers as gambling is with some people.

Also what about minors, they are constantly going to be perstering their parents to let them buy some more consumables.
 

[email protected]

Novice Member
It all depends how its handled and until the full FACTS are known its pointless guessing and getting uptight about it. If it means a £40 game is only £30 to buy and has £10 worth of 'extra items' which are optional and not necessary to complete the game then its a great idea. If its purely for online rpg type games then every single one of these has that going on anyway (try typing legend of mir or similar into ebay) so it would remove the risk of being ripped off as happens a LOT now, so again this would be a great idea.

They are just 2 good examples off the top of my head and I could spend all day dreamming up bad examples but whats the point until a genuine official statement comes from MS?
 

rev happy

Active Member
This sounds like a terrible idea. :eek:

If it's as bad as it sounds then Microsoft would be shooting itself in the foot just when the race is about to begin.

Let's hope it's all a big misunderstanding. :lease:
 

gavan

Novice Member
It all depends how its handled and until the full FACTS are known its pointless guessing and getting uptight about it. If it means a £40 game is only £30 to buy and has £10 worth of 'extra items' which are optional and not necessary to complete the game then its a great idea. If its purely for online rpg type games then every single one of these has that going on anyway (try typing legend of mir or similar into ebay) so it would remove the risk of being ripped off as happens a LOT now, so again this would be a great idea.

They are just 2 good examples off the top of my head and I could spend all day dreamming up bad examples but whats the point until a genuine official statement comes from MS?

Indeed - what people seem to be conveniently forgetting is that the notion of spending real-world cash to get better in-game stats/items etc. has been established for years in online games (WoW, Everquest etc. etc.). Remember, with Xbox Live you're also paying extra every month to play online even though you already bought the game.

Personally, as long as the items are _optional_ to playing and completing the game (offline) I don't care. If you want to go onto MSes 'pay to play online' service then you've already bought into the concept of paying more on top of your purchase of the game for online play anyway.


Gav
 

durera

Well-known Member
gavan said:
Indeed - what people seem to be conveniently forgetting is that the notion of spending real-world cash to get better in-game stats/items etc. has been established for years in online games (WoW, Everquest etc. etc.). Remember, with Xbox Live you're also paying extra every month to play online even though you already bought the game.

Personally, as long as the items are _optional_ to playing and completing the game (offline) I don't care. If you want to go onto MSes 'pay to play online' service then you've already bought into the concept of paying more on top of your purchase of the game for online play anyway.


Gav
As long as you can earn the items ingame, rather than paying for them then evreything is fine, the lazy slackers that have more money than sense can buy it, I will earn it through playing the game.

If they add content that can only be purchased then, well, I am at a loss for words really.

"The notion of spending real world cash for in-game items" has not been established in online games -- the notion of spending real world cash to get someone else to obtain ingame items that you could get yourself has been though. At no point have I ever heard of having items ingame that can be only be obtained through buying them with real world $$.

I was beginning to come onside with MS over the 360, I have been highly impressed with almost everything about it so far, and had almost forgotten the years of abuse as a PC owner at their hands. I just hope this is not true, as it could set a worrying trend.
 

Sy1441

Well-known Member
DarkEntity said:
It will be excellent for the people who can afford it, while the poor folk will suffer.
You could say this about most things in life though. Id love to have a new porsche 911 and i bet theyre great for the people who drive them but unfortunaly ive just got a battered 3 series.
 

dino2021

Active Member
Sad day if it turns out to be right, all the kids at home with no bills to pay buying the extra's while the family man with bills has to have the "vanilla" items. As if I didn't hear "I owned you" enough already.

Just great MS, thanks youv'e done me a solid :smashin:
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
gavan said:
Indeed - what people seem to be conveniently forgetting is that the notion of spending real-world cash to get better in-game stats/items etc. has been established for years in online games (WoW, Everquest etc. etc.). Remember, with Xbox Live you're also paying extra every month to play online even though you already bought the game.

Personally, as long as the items are _optional_ to playing and completing the game (offline) I don't care. If you want to go onto MSes 'pay to play online' service then you've already bought into the concept of paying more on top of your purchase of the game for online play anyway.


Gav
Not really, if you read my post above you will see that I mention the very same subject (i.e. spending real world cash on MMORPG items etc.).

The danger comes when to get the most out of a game you have to say keep buying guns etc. which run out after a time and really need re-purchasing if you are to get the most out of a game you've bought.

With Live, there is a set charge for playing for a year (i've paid anything from £5 - £20 for a years subs, allthough even if for some reason you pay RRP it's still a set £40 for the year). That is a direct service you are paying for in a similar way to that we all pay a fee for our internet service. I don't even mind the concept of buying additional content to extend the life of a game (i.e. more levels, cars, tracks etc.) as you know that when you buy them you will be able to use them to enhance the enjoyment of your game and they will not run out.

What I do strongly disagree with is buying consumable objects for a specific game that will either improve your ability to play online or to complete the offline game. This seriously lends itself to abuse by those who become addicted to a game and you can see people racking up £100's of online purchases for a game.
 
A

Ajazz 87

Guest
Depending on how much impact this has on the game I will avoid any game which uses this!
 

hottstuff

Banned
Don't think MS want to pish any of their consumers off considering the war will begin in a little over 4 months time.
I know I for one wouldn't buy any games that employ that strategy.
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Home AV, TV, Tech News & Reviews, Plus The Best of July 2020

Trending threads

Latest News

Has Amazon Prime Video dropped Dolby Atmos?
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
McIntosh and Sonus faber unite under Fine Sounds Distribution in UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
JBL launches 4349 Studio Monitor
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LG Display next generation OLEDs showcased at SID 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 2nd August 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Top Bottom