Gleipnir3;n10539892 said:
Note: The following is not directed at you personally, but towards the more militant types who take their anger out on people who even buy one MT on even a F2P game. Which I'll admit I'm guilty for being a Cosmetics whore, but I fuckin HATE Pay To Win/LootBoxes/Weapon crates as those are outright unfair to everyone, especially in PvP based games. NTM Loot boxes, I feel with others, are gambling; and that is a big nono.
No worries, I completely understand, I dont' take offense or anything like that. And I actually really have nothing against people who buy microtransactions, it's none of my business. All I care about is getting the full experience that I paid for. My frustrations with microtransactions are not directed in any way towards people who enjoy them.
But I will argue against something I do not want in my games, just as you (or others) can argue for it. That's why I love forums.
Gleipnir3;n10539892 said:
1: Why do many people feel that basic format MTs are a violation when it's 100% Cosmetic Only, offers no gamebreaking mechanics, and by all means is just skins which only change looks not stats?
2: Why do people feel that others buying cosmetic only items affect their game and feel that?
Why should a 99-cent outfit not be made available to the player for free in a post-launch update? Why shouldn't it be added in as part of a more substantial paid DLC down the road?
The only answer that makes sense to me is "greed," and I will not support that. The alternative is they are directing a significant amount of resources from the singleplayer game (GTA V) to fuel some sort of GTA-Online like multiplayer, which I will also not support. I do not buy CDPR games for multiplayer. I buy them for strong singleplayer mechanics. I'm fine with unintrusive, minor multiplayer, but if it starts pulling a lot of resources from the development of SP, CDPR can kiss my business goodbye. Not that it matters, they'll still make a ton of money from the game and my purchase matters very little.
CDPR will 100% make a buttload of money from CP2077's sales alone. I promise you that. Unless the game itself is terrible, it will knock sales out of the park. CDPR is still on the top seller's list for TW3. They do not
need microtransactions - if they added them, it's because they
want to add them, not because it's an inherent requirement.
Why would someone want to spent 99-cents on an outfit when they could get that outfit for free? If it's about supporting CDPR, buy the game and buy the DLC. Heck, go play Gwent and buy its microtransactions.
Gleipnir3;n10539892 said:
3: While we can all agree that setting up MTs to be gambling systems for gear/buffs (Stat Changing/Power Leveling), and by all means that is 100% wrong; the flip side is that MTs are generalized and seen as all bad when a majority is cosmetics. Thus why are all MTs put into the generalization they are all bad?
They aren't all bad. They are bad (to me) if I'm already giving a developer $60 for a singleplayer-focused game. I have no problem with cosmetic-only microtransactions in multiplayer games, even if I gave the dev $60. That just means I should get a LOT of content for my $60, and then extras down the line for fair prices. No loot boxes, though - outright purchases only, please, like Heroes of the Storm did before the big loot box update.
If I'm buying a single-player focused RPG (which, 2077 will mostly be by all accounts - though nobody knows for sure, obviously), I should not be nickel and dimed, even if there's an added, optional multiplayer mode. Again, it's CDPR's own fault if they decide to absorb the server costs associated with a multiplayer game by tacking it onto a singleplayer game.
Gleipnir3;n10539892 said:
4: Why do people feel an non-intrusive "Option" = "Having money stolen from you."? (Note: This is directed to Cosmetics only. Not those damn Weapon Crates and Armor Boxes, especially when it's PvP based. I hate that crap. Even if the game is F2P, the whole Pay To Win thing is outright trash.)
I don't know, because I'm not one of those people. Sounds like a dumb argument to me, though.