Xbox One and Forza's Shameless Micro transactions

[BeeBoop]

How do you guys feel about this? Just read an article below that made me feel that Forza has gone about the wrong way of utilizing micro transactions. The way the article explains it, makes it seem like a horrible and shameless way to include micro transactions.


http://kotaku.com/forza-5-economy-a...6046?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

 

[zerocool84]

With less cars and it missing the most famous track in the world, you can tell they rushed it to get it out in time for Xbone release.

 

[BeeBoop]

I use to be an xbox fan but it just seems like they are going about this all the wrong way. Micro transactions are fine but when the game is made to feel like the only way to enjoy it is to fork over some cash, a crap load of cash in Forza's case, it makes me view both xbox one and Forza as money pit rather than a gaming system. I'd even go as far as to say i'm disgusted with Microsoft for allowing this to happen.

 

[KaOTiK]

I'd even go as far as to say i'm disgusted with Microsoft for allowing this to happen.

MS didn't allow it, they decided it being a first party title. I doubt Turn10 was like hey, how can we screw our fans over for a few bucks?

I've read about this whole micro transaction fiasco with Forza and Dead Rising 3/Ryse and it is shitty, especially with Forza. Much less content than previous versions, $50 DLC car pack, laughable prices on their tokens that the whole pricing system on them is terribad (the lowest amount you buy gives you the best bang for your buck lol), and the fact they changed how earn cars in game (no more car prizes) and how long it takes to grind out getting a new nice car, you can tell it was all changed to heavily encourage buying their tokens.

Basically Forza 5, has the grind system of a Free 2 Play game while charging you full price for the game still.

It has become a big issue, I've seen a lot of articles on it and Turn 10 even made some announcement yesterday, which laughably pissed people off more because basically they were like, hey we heard you don't like our micro transactions and prices, so for this weekend we are doing 50% off the cost of those lol.

 

[mmntech]

It's not just an Xbox thing because I remember reading that Gran Turismo 6 has them as well.

I really hate the term "micro transaction" because it's just such a smarmy corporate buzzword that belies the true purpose of the system. Sure, you don't have to pay for this stuff, but it makes the game a whole lot better if you do. And hey, they don't cost that much. Which is like being slapped in the face with a fat willy after paying $60 for a game that's essentially incomplete. It's horse armour all over again, except now people seem to accept it for some reason. With free-to-play games it's expected, but it's not acceptable for a full retail title IMO.

We really need a new name for "micro transactions". I'm taking the best candidates.

 

[Doppel]

I still hate at a deep level inside my naughty parts the notion of paying to play a game after already having payed an up-front cost.

 

[KaOTiK]

It's not just an Xbox thing because I remember reading that Gran Turismo 6 has them as well.

While this is right, so far from what has been found out with GT6, they just added a way to buy credits to get the cars quicker, but they haven't changed the in game economy at all. That is the big thing, Turn 10 changed the in game economy, making the acquisition of cars take more time than in previous titles and to make paying cash for the car more appealing. While GT6 is doing the same as previous GT's with its economy but just allowing you to skip it and buy the cars if you want. Subtle but HUGE difference.

This is all assuming the info that has been found out about GT6 is correct.

 

[cmdrdredd]

With less cars and it missing the most famous track in the world, you can tell they rushed it to get it out in time for Xbone release.

This is what happened. They HAD to get it out for launch. Microsoft needed games to sell the system and they had nothing. They had to get Forza and Killer Instinct out in time. The parts they create after the game is final are up to MS to decide how to handle. It's not the developers.

That explains the lack of content initially but NOT the huge difference in pricing between Forza 4 and Forza 5.

 

[waggy]

this should work out very well for them. since every game based on them have done well.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Just another in a long line of increasingly disgusting business moves. These aren't games, they are milking machines hedging on people's impatience and "gotta have it now" attitude.

Why do you need to grind to unlock cars in a racing game? What does it provide other than a false sense of game length? Oh..we can use that to our advantage to make more money!

Who determines what the "base" game that costs $60 is going to be, and then says "oh and we have these 100 other details we'll leave out and sell extra"

How does "MS said we needed to have the game out" have ANYTHING to do with why they have all of that? The game already cost what it cost regardless and would have cost the same if it came out 6 months down the road. Money grabs plain and simple.

Why support it? At least a few people actually found a voice.

 

[EightySix Four]

I agree with you on the DLC... but calling the main game a "grind" is pushing it. Racing games where you earn money to buy cars and upgrades is not exactly some sort of new concept. I'm not sure I understand that particular point.

 

[Anteaus]

How do you guys feel about this? Just read an article below that made me feel that Forza has gone about the wrong way of utilizing micro transactions. The way the article explains it, makes it seem like a horrible and shameless way to include micro transactions.


http://kotaku.com/forza-5-economy-a...6046?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

Microtransanctions are a trend that has taken hold on all platforms. I'll randomly pick on Borderlands 2, which has over 40 individual DLC/microtransaction options. There are numerous games that abuse this way of getting additional revenue. People are picking on Forza 5 right now because of the interest in the new platform and all, but it annoys me when I read articles written as if they broke the code or something. Leaving out content to provide seperately as DLC or microtransaction has been mainstream for awhile now.

Singling out MS or Forza for doing something that has been mainstream for awhile now is silly. The only way to fight it is to either not buy the game at all, or completely avoid DLC.

I'm not one of these "completionist" gamers who only feel whole if they unlock every aspect of a game or get all of the DLC, so it doesn't bother me in the least. I use what comes with the game and then go on to the next game. That said, I can see how gamer OCD can really turn microtransactions a pain in the a** if they have to end up spending so much more money.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I agree with you on the DLC... but calling the main game a "grind" is pushing it. Racing games where you earn money to buy cars and upgrades is not exactly some sort of new concept. I'm not sure I understand that particular point.

Yea, I'm aware racing games do this. Never really cared for it, but the point in relation to it was around the "need to get everything now" mentality that they are taking advantage of. Rocksmith did this as well with the "game unlock options" you could purchase. It's just plain a rip off and ugly that companies think that is completely fine. What happened to secret codes/keystrokes to unlock everything? Oh..no, they'd rather charge you.

Imagine if to get 99 lives in Gradius you had to pay them $5. etc etc.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Just another in a long line of increasingly disgusting business moves. These aren't games, they are milking machines hedging on people's impatience and "gotta have it now" attitude.

Why do you need to grind to unlock cars in a racing game? What does it provide other than a false sense of game length? Oh..we can use that to our advantage to make more money!

Who determines what the "base" game that costs $60 is going to be, and then says "oh and we have these 100 other details we'll leave out and sell extra"

How does "MS said we needed to have the game out" have ANYTHING to do with why they have all of that? The game already cost what it cost regardless and would have cost the same if it came out 6 months down the road. Money grabs plain and simple.

Why support it? At least a few people actually found a voice.

I don't think you understand how this works.

1) Racing games have always been a grind. Every single one. Even need for speed if you want the better cars and such. You always need a certain amount of points or currency. Maybe you just don't play racing games.

2) Nobody determined what the base game was. Microsoft demanded it be a launch game so they did whatever they could to get it out in time. They could only make 10 cars a month. It's the fastest they could work. They released what they could and there was more they were working on and could not get into the final product. They have no control over the publishing of the title. That is up to MS. MS decided the developers should get paid for the cars and extra stuff they continue to work on. It's really that simple.

3) The fact that MS said "we must have it as a launch game" makes a big difference. Normally they have 2 years or more to work on a game. The time they had from the moment they got the official dev kits to the launch of the console was measured in months, not years. The game is larger than Forza 2 which released a full year and a half after the 360 launch. It was the same with Killer Instinct. The developers were under enormous time constraints and couldn't get the full roster complete for their game either.

Here's a hint...previous forza games also had DLC car packs and tokens you can buy. The pricing was different for the in-game economy but it was there anyhow.

I also agree with Anteaus in that other games are much more abusive with their DLC and such.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You either responded before I posted again, or you don't get what I'm saying.


For #3 though, it should make no difference. What you are essentially saying is: Well we spent less time on it, but we will charge you the same amount up front for less of a game, and on top of that when we finally do finish all the other stuff, we will charge you more. Bad business, no matter how you try to spin it.

Anyone arguing that this is fine is part of the problem.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You either responded before I posted again, or you don't get what I'm saying.


For #3 though, it should make no difference. What you are essentially saying is: Well we spent less time on it, but we will charge you the same amount up front for less of a game, and on top of that when we finally do finish all the other stuff, we will charge you more. Bad business, no matter how you try to spin it.

Anyone arguing that this is fine is part of the problem.

That has zero to do with the developers or the quality of the game. That's the entire point. I'd rather have a good game to play at launch than nothing. Without Killer Instinct and Forza there would be no launch games for me to even play. Do you not understand this? How many people said "I won't buy a PS4 since Drive Club and Watch dogs aren't launch games"? On these forums there was a lot of that talk. If Forza and KI were not launch titles I can guarantee the same attitude. It matters to have a system seller or two on a new console.

The article linked was written as if the author had no clue what a development cycle is and what it means when you have to get a game working for the launch of a new console with new hardware, running a new OS, using a new controller SDK, and get it to go online with new netcode.

Besides the alternative is for them to just release a new game next year with all the stuff that could have been DLC releases like CoD does.

 

[ImpulsE69]

So you are OK with those business practices because you HAD to have one on launch day? That is no better than the CoD buy the retexture every year mindset. As a consumer we should have no care in the world of a development cycle. If others are complaining, there's a reason and it isn't because of dev cycles and all involved deserve to take a hit.

Nothing you are arguing about has anything to do with my original point though so you aren't getting what I was referring to and I'm just going to drop it.

 

[exdeath]

Was obvious from day one the greedy screw the gamers direction they want to take Xbox.

They may have backtracked on Xbones DRM but the cat is out of the bag with regards to the direction they are adamant in going. One way or another.

 

[Sulaco]

There is absolutely NOTHING game-wise in the launch window for either system that has more than a passing appeal to me.

This just makes it all the easier to wait for price drops and bundles. So glad I didn't give in and buy one of these at launch.

 

[Newbian]

Ehh console's can do it the easiest and people keep paying for it over and over so why stop it now?

It's just gotten bad enough that this kind of crap is spreading to the pc market but limited compared to how bad consoles have it.

I don't blame either sony or microsoft as it's the game makers more so then either now that dlc is available to them.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I'm a bit concerned that they haven't made a bigger fuss about how much content they cut and then stuff like this. Forza 5 comes off as a pure money grab.

But hey, you'll be able to get more cars and maybe tracks later, just give them more money!

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/11/27/director-defends-forza-5s-slender-content/

"Regarding DLC, we have found that 10 cars a month is the fastest we could create "just in time" content. Just like in Forza Motorsport 4, we are planning to add as many as 10 cars a month to Forza Motorsport 5. It takes more than six months to build every car. Delivering cars in monthly packs allows us to keep the game new and fresh for those that are interested."

What?!? It takes more than 6 months for them to make each car? I can't tell if this guy thinks people are just straight up stupid or what, but come on, they can't seriously expect people to believe their garbage explanations. If that were true then their 10 car pack would take 5 years, and the game would have taken 100.

I think you mean "for those willing to pay"

 

[cmdrdredd]

There is a simple solution. Buy the game if you want the game, don't if you don't. Don't buy the DLC if you don't want it.

How hard is that? It's not as if this is the only game that has DLC content. It is expected that nearly every game has DLC.

You're kidding yourself if you think it's going to change.

 

[BikeJunkie]

I still hate at a deep level inside my naughty parts the notion of paying to play a game after already having payed an up-front cost.

Same here (you've been reading my mind a lot lately - stop it)

Battlefield 4 is really bad about this too. Premium members - which costs $50 on top of the game!!!!! - get "priority access" to servers as well as additional weapons, maps, etc.

Like Forza, there aren't enough maps in BF4. The ones that are there are fantastic don't get me wrong, but for an MP-focused game, the size of the collection is a joke. And hell, a number of the DLC maps are rehashes from BF3, and some of those rehashes are rehashes from BF2!!! WTF?!

But above all else, the "priority access" to servers pisses me off the most. I paid for the $%@$ing game too. I deserve just as much access to it as anyone else does.

 

[BikeJunkie]

Singling out MS or Forza for doing something that has been mainstream for awhile now is silly. The only way to fight it is to either not buy the game at all, or completely avoid DLC.

I think Forza is being singled out because the main offering is pretty thin to begin with. It's significantly smaller than all of the previous installments.

 

[Anteaus]

I think Forza is being singled out because the main offering is pretty thin to begin with. It's significantly smaller than all of the previous installments.

Yea your probably right about that.