Discussion in 'Xbox Forums' started by Batch, Aug 16, 2006.
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.
and what disadvantage would we have on live with people that have purchased better weapons
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
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.
I'd quite happily spunk a sky diver on some sort of heat seeking bullets for my assault rifle on Graw
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?
(World Of Warcraft joke)
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
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
sounds good to me lol
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
This sounds like a terrible idea.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Depending on how much impact this has on the game I will avoid any game which uses this!
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.
I think you are all getting a tad excited over nothing atm. The example was buying a gun....not mortgaging a house, paying for petrol etc.
I have no problem with it as long as it is just cosmetic stuff like extra guns/cars maybe for Test Drive etc. No one is forcing you to buy them.
MS hasn't actually said it's going to charge for any 'in game items' yet though have they? All that report states is that they are implementing the technology to enable something like that to happen. I would have thought it would be down to the developers wether or not to use it. Given that they actualy want people to buy and play there games I can't see them using it to alienate half there customers.
A game where this idea would work a treat would be Texas Holdem, maybe thats why it's been delayed
I can only see this being applicable to niche games, such as the RPG's where the technology is already implimented.
If it were to come to fruition in mainstream games then I can't see it being a good thing. As said above, why pay for something which is going to run out?
I'm all for extending the life of a game with new levels and alike - and gladly welcome the option to pay for it - but "consumables" being integral to a game... I just can't see them doing it.
If this happens I will never get my credit card balance down!!!!!
Originally posted by MMalik 81:
What i meant was anything additional such as a new type of armour or bullet that degrades over time and isn't originally included in the game should be free if your downloading it. But the thing is the only reason they would do something like this is to generate revenue so its never going to be free so i'm saying a big fat no to this, it's a seriously rubbish idea.
Separate names with a comma.