Want to unlock everything in For Honor? You'll need to play the game for 2.5 years or...

[stewi0001]

Let's see if I can give you an example to better understand my view and I would assume the view of the reddit author as well. This might be a crappy one: Say you buy a standard car. Oh you want to use the steering wheel that is already included in the car? That will cost extra. In other words, it's about paying extra for content that already exist in the game you just bought, unlike a DLC which is seperate from the main game to begin with. It can be argued against this view but I'm just trying to explain my view on it.

Flawed argument. The steering wheel is a necessary part of the vehicle and is required. If you want it leather wrapped, that is going to cost extra.

I never said it was the best example I could think of. If it would make you happy, let's adjust it to that you can only drive in first gear until you drive X miles or pay Y dollars.

 

[Masaad]

Interesting, if you know of any articles related to how it works, I wouldn't mind checking it out.

http://www.thesixthaxis.com//2017/0...laws-are-threatening-one-of-2017s-best-games/

 

[Rippleman]

You're still missing the point. They are selling people a product designed to bilk customers for stuff they already own. It has nothing to do with due dilligence and everything to do with business ethics and value.

Your position, "just don't buy it," is pointless. Not only does their model compensate for this, the non-objection normalizes the practice. Frankly, gamers want access to what they pay for without artificial barriers in place to take more of their money.

A lot of us said "no" to DLC and made the exact same argument you're making. Now every game on the planet gets chopped up into DLC bits.

Well, lesson learned. Publishers need to be called out on their schemes. And that means actually saying something instead of bending over and taking it, which is all you're advocating for. Weak.

I don't think I am missing the point, I am simply rejecting the point. In the end its just 2 people with different perceptions, 1 glass half full, the other half empty, both talking about the same glass.

 

[Masaad]

But I do agree that it is annoying that it would take that long to unlock everything for a game I have already paid for.

You do have the game. The extras are just that... extras.

Round of golf? base price. Want a cart? Extra. Want clubs? Extra. Want beer? Extra.
Burger at burger joint? base price. Want bacon? Extra. Want fries? Extra. Want a shake? Extra.
New computer? base price. Want more CPU? Extra. Want more ram? Extra. What more space? Extra.
Staying at hotel? base price. Want a bigger room? Extra. Want room service? Extra. Want a better view? Extra.
New car? base price. Want leather? Extra. Want bigger engine? Extra. Want better trim package? Extra.

and games... new game? base price. Extras are just that.. extras. If anything, the game maker is being extremely nice letting you get these extras for free if you want simply by putting in more time.


On and on and on. Virtually all business work on this model.

You do have a point, but on the other hand it is becoming more and more so that the actual game becomes unplayable (unless you really like losing unfairly) without the extra premium. And this is why it's still debatable, because it's not an extra anymore, it's almost ruining the base game and the reason for purchasing to begin with.

 

[Rippleman]

I never said it was the best example I could think of. If it would make you happy, let's adjust it to that you can only drive in first gear until you drive X miles or pay Y dollars.

Still flawed. The person would have went in knowing he could only drive in first gear or X miles. It would still be his choice to go through with the purchase. The choice is his and his alone. If he didn't like it or agree to it, he could simply not buy the car and search for another.

Lets use an example: Whats the last game you bought with this "issue"?

 

[Masaad]

Still flawed. The person would have went in knowing he could only drive in first gear or X miles. It would still be his choice to go through with the purchase. The choice is his and his alone. If he didn't like it or agree to it, he could simply not buy the car and search for another.

Lets use an example: Whats the last game you bought with this "issue"?

It never happened to me, I don't generally play online, and I almost never buy a game until all the reviews are up and issues fixed (except for the Witcher which was a day one)

BUT... I was pretty excited for this game and I thought about buying it but kept thinking "ubisoft", so I kinda feel how one wold be upset.

As for accepting, this is a full price game, it doesn't come with a warning that it relies so heavily on micro transactions, so nobody accepted anything

 

[Rippleman]

It never happened to me, I don't generally play online, and I almost never buy a game until all the reviews are up and issues fixed (except for the Witcher which was a day one)

BUT... I was pretty excited for this game and I thought about buying it but kept thinking "ubisoft", so I kinda feel how one wold be upset.

As for accepting, this is a full price game, it doesn't come with a warning that it relies so heavily on micro transactions, so nobody accepted anything

So games should include a "if you want to have more features and/or instant upgrades, extra charges apply"? To me, this applies to everything in life no matter what one is buying. This is what I meant by entitlement.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Like I said, would you sign a contract without knowing the details? If you would, that is your fault for not doing your due diligence.

You're still missing the point. They are selling people a product designed to bilk customers for stuff they already own. It has nothing to do with due dilligence and everything to do with business ethics and value.

Your position, "just don't buy it," is pointless. Not only does their model compensate for this, the non-objection normalizes the practice. Frankly, gamers want access to what they pay for without artificial barriers in place to take more of their money.

A lot of us said "no" to DLC and made the exact same argument you're making. Now every game on the planet gets chopped up into DLC bits.

Well, lesson learned. Publishers need to be called out on their schemes. And that means actually saying something instead of bending over and taking it, which is all you're advocating for. Weak.

Exactly. People shrugged at pre orders and season passes, now they are standard.

People got into an uproar over "online passes". Remember those? You couldnt pay online without buying a "pass"? Dead as a doornail now.

If we hold the industry to task over shady behavior, they stop. If we let them get away with it and shrug, they will continue to do it.

 

[gusticles41]

So games should include a "if you want to have more features and/or instant upgrades, extra charges apply"? To me, this applies to everything in life no matter what one is buying. This is what I meant by entitlement.

If games don't have some type of disclaimer on them then what are you referring to when you say "due diligence"? Are gamers to read reviews from other gamers who were already taken for a ride?

 

[Rippleman]

If games don't have some type of disclaimer on them then what are you referring to when you say "due diligence"? Are gamers to read reviews from other gamers who were already taken for a ride?

Buy the game. Expect the game. Don't expect freebies. Read the reviews from people who have accepted these conditions. Again, don't agree? DON'T BUY THE ****ING GAME! This seems to be an impossible concept for teens theses days.

 

[gusticles41]

Buy the game. Expect the game. Don't expect freebies. Simple. Agian, don't agree? DON'T BUY THE ****ING GAME! This seems to be an impossible concept for teens theses days.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to make this about entitlement. It's a debate about the morality of hidden charges in games. You clearly have no problem with it and say we shouldn't buy it if we don't like it. I'm asking you how we're supposed to know about the hidden fees unless people buy it.

 

[davislane1]

I'm not sure why you keep trying to make this about entitlement. It's a debate about the morality of hidden charges in games. You clearly have no problem with it and say we shouldn't buy it if we don't like it. I'm asking you how we're supposed to know about the hidden fees unless people buy it.

Rippleman isn't even on topic. The thread is about base game content and he keeps classifying it as add-on content, as if it were DLC. Arguing with this guy is like trying to map constellations with an elephant.

 

[Rippleman]

Rippleman isn't even on topic. The thread is about base game content and he keeps classifying it as add-on content, as if it were DLC. Arguing with this guy is like trying to map constellations with an elephant.

Just because your glass is half empty and you are crying for more milk, it still doesn't make me wrong.

 

[Rippleman]

I'm not sure why you keep trying to make this about entitlement. It's a debate about the morality of hidden charges in games. You clearly have no problem with it and say we shouldn't buy it if we don't like it. I'm asking you how we're supposed to know about the hidden fees unless people buy it.

You and other teens are expecting freebies/upgrades. You are not entitled to them. You are buying the base game. You can play the entire base game. Extras are just that... extras. To expect them for free is called entitlement. You are not entitled even if you feel you are. If you do not like this feeling, then simply do not buy the game.

 

[Rippleman]

To the people crying about extras... imagine your favorite game WITHOUT the extras and the micro transactions. Imagine your game with them REMOVED. Does it change anything for you? Do you feel better about it? Does it change the way you play or the amount you play? If you have it removed, it is the same as you NOT buying it in the first place, so why have it removed if it changes nothing?

 

[davislane1]

To the people crying about extras... imagine your favorite game WITHOUT the extras and the micro transactions. Imagine your game with them REMOVED. Does it change anything for you? Do you feel better about it? Does it change the way you play or the amount you play? If you have it removed, it is the same as you NOT buying it in the first place, so why have it removed if it changes nothing?

Are you really this dense? The article and thread have nothing to do with extras. It has to do with content already paid for.

 

[Reehahs]

Like I said, would you sign a contract without knowing the details? If you would, that is your fault for not doing your due diligence.

You're still missing the point. They are selling people a product designed to bilk customers for stuff they already own. It has nothing to do with due dilligence and everything to do with business ethics and value.

Your position, "just don't buy it," is pointless. Not only does their model compensate for this, the non-objection normalizes the practice. Frankly, gamers want access to what they pay for without artificial barriers in place to take more of their money.

A lot of us said "no" to DLC and made the exact same argument you're making. Now every game on the planet gets chopped up into DLC bits.

Well, lesson learned. Publishers need to be called out on their schemes. And that means actually saying something instead of bending over and taking it, which is all you're advocating for. Weak.

Exactly. People shrugged at pre orders and season passes, now they are standard.

People got into an uproar over "online passes". Remember those? You couldnt pay online without buying a "pass"? Dead as a doornail now.

If we hold the industry to task over shady behavior, they stop. If we let them get away with it and shrug, they will continue to do it.

The online pass thing was like a Darwin test. It killed the second hand sales for games focused on online play which in turn killed their communities as second hand sales are a good induction of new players.

 

[Rippleman]

Are you really this dense? The article and thread have nothing to do with extras. It has to do with content already paid for.

lol, you just contradicted your own argument and invalidated your position (and probably don't even know it). Just for shits and giggles, let's go with your argument for a moment. So, lets take this game the article is about. So you need 2.5 years to unlock everything. Are you saying that they should just automatically give it to you? Why?

To me, this is just another kid crying about how its unfair that he has to work for something to get it. Everything just isn't handed to you and you are not entitled to everything just because you want it.

By the way: I am using the word "extras" as "extra options for purchases"

 

[davislane1]

lol, you just contradicted your own argument and invalidated your position (and probably don't even know it). Just for shits and giggles, let's go with your argument for a moment. So, lets take this game the article is about. So you need 2.5 years to unlock everything. Are you saying that they should just automatically give it to you? Why?

To me, this is just another kid crying about how its unfair that he has to work for something to get it. Everything just isn't handed to you and you are not entitled to everything just because you want it.

So it's not an act. You really are this dense. Woah.

 

[Rippleman]

So it's not an act. You really are this dense. Woah.

Why are avoiding answering? Tell the board why they should give you everything all upfront. Come on, make your case.

 

[Reehahs]

I would not care about spending 2.5 years on cosmetic items. If the locked items I already paid for affect the game play with their stats then I would definitely want to get the best items in a reasonable time. Burnout Paradise was done nicely where you could unlock all the cars as your progressed in the game and the amount of time correlated with your skill level. However, if you wanted to have them all from the get go then you could pay 1/8 of the RRP to get every locked car that was in the original game.

 

[davislane1]

Why are avoiding answering? Tell the board why they should give you everything all upfront. Come on, make your case.

Because I never said that. Here is every post I have made in this thread about the For Honor's microstransaction structure:

This is their plan to make money with faltering unit sales. Don't sell the game, sell the stuff in it.

They aren't selling additional content. They artificially increased the difficult of unlocking base game content to incentivize players to spend 10x the MSRP of the game to access what they already own. It's like saying DOOM has all these unlockable weapons, but if you want to unlock the BFG you have to kill 100,000,000 imps on Nightmare difficulty without taking any damage...or pay Bethesda $10. Ubisoft has done this with For Honor across the entire roster of base game unlockables.

It's a shameless cash grab and a thinly disguised scam.

Shorter version: You pay $30,000 for a fully loaded Camry and the dealer disables all the options after signing unless you pay him $180,000 or drive the car for 100,000 miles, whichever comes first.

You're still missing the point. They are selling people a product designed to bilk customers for stuff they already own. It has nothing to do with due dilligence and everything to do with business ethics and value.

Your position, "just don't buy it," is pointless. Not only does their model compensate for this, the non-objection normalizes the practice. Frankly, gamers want access to what they pay for without artificial barriers in place to take more of their money.

A lot of us said "no" to DLC and made the exact same argument you're making. Now every game on the planet gets chopped up into DLC bits.

Well, lesson learned. Publishers need to be called out on their schemes. And that means actually saying something instead of bending over and taking it, which is all you're advocating for. Weak.

While we tend to disagree about things, I hadn't pegged you for being shamelessly dishonest. I stand corrected.

 

[Rippleman]

Because I never said that. Here is every post I have made in this thread about the For Honor's microstransaction structure:

While we tend to disagree about things, I hadn't pegged you for being shamelessly dishonest. I stand corrected.

Then I have no idea what you are objecting to in my position PERTAINING to the article: I too (JUST LIKE YOU) say all the content is there, and if you want to get things faster, you have pay extra to get it. This entire time, I have been making the point that there is nothing wrong with this. If anyone is upset that they don't get things for free, that's simply too bad - hence the entitlement point.

Can you point out then to me (and the board) WHAT part of MY position you are claiming is wrong?
1) the content is there
2) you have to work for it
3) if you pay you don't have to work for it
4) if you don't like the model, no one forces you to play

Which of these points are incorrect in your eyes?

 

[StrikerRocket]

This is their plan to make money with faltering unit sales. Don't sell the game, sell the stuff in it.

This is why I *never* buy any such games... ever...

 

[davislane1]

Then I have no idea what you are objecting to in my position PERTAINING to the article: I too (JUST LIKE YOU) say all the content is there, and if you want to get things faster, you have pay extra to get it. This entire time, I have been making the point that there is nothing wrong with this. If anyone is upset that they don't get things for free, that's simply too bad - hence the entitlement point.

Can you point out then to me (and the board) WHAT part of MY position you are claiming is wrong?
1) the content is there
2) you have to work for it
3) if you pay you don't have to work for it
4) if you don't like the model, no one forces you to play

Which of these points are incorrect in your eyes?

All of that is irrelevant. That's the problem with your "position." The article is not about For Honor having microtransactions. The guy who ran the numbers was not trying to determine if the game should have microtransactions. The article and the original story it is reporting on is about whether or not Ubisoft is being ethical with the way it has structured those microstransactions.

All you're saying is, "the game has microtransactions and you don't have to pay for them if you don't want to. Therefore, anyone who complains about them is entitled."

That's logically incoherent because,

1. The topic isn't about whether microtransactions should be in the game.
2. Criticizing the structure of a microtransaction system isn't entitlement.
3. A conclusion without relevant and true evidence isn't true.

My argument, and the argument of the original poster, is that Ubisoft has artificially increased the difficulty of important base game content to incentivize players to spend more money. The key word being 'artificial.' Most games can be fully experience (all unlocks, secrets, DLCs, etc.) in less than 100hrs. Ubisoft has increased that time to YEARS not to increase value to players, but to increase their own income. That isn't ethical. It is shady at best and criminal at worst.

Here's what that looks like in as a syllogism:

1. Ubisoft has included microtransactions in For Honor.
2. Ubisoft has tied microstransactions to base game unlocks.
3. Anyone who buys For Honor is paying for the base game.
4. Base game unlocks meaningfully impact gameplay.
5. The unlock difficulty of base game unlocks is unreasonably high.
6. The only way to experience the full game is to spend an unreasonable amount of time (5) or use the microtransaction system (1).
7. Failure to do (6) leaves players at a disadvantage because of (4).
8. (1) - (7) clearly benefits Ubisoft.
9. It is unethical to sell a product that needlessly burdens customers for the benefit of the company.
10. (6) needlessly burdens customers and benefits Ubisoft.
11. Therefore, Ubisoft is being unethical.