In-Game Purchases

+
In-Game Purchases

What kind of In-Game Purchases do you think we could expect - Booster Packs, Expansions, Singular cards?

A big part of the Gwent card game in the Witcher III Wild Hunt was to be able to collect cards through beating NPC's, do you think this could still be a thing?

Either way very pumped that this game has been announced for a standalone release! Looks great!

 
I really hope that it doesn't have anything to do with building decks. If you can, for example, buy different kinds of skins and card designs it would be nice.

I'm hoping that you can get full decks from the start and just play with your friends for fun. Anxious to see how this works when I actually get to play it!
 
That would definitely be great but I think that they will go in the Hearthstone direction letting us buy packs and stuff like that. However it would also be great if you are playing with your friends just have a custom match mode where you are able to use any of the cards in the game.
 
I'm glad there will be packs to unlock I assume there will be some sort of in game currency that is rewarded for playing, I would like to build my own decks and see how they do. Unlocking cards and maby even crafting them is a good idea which will somewhat mitigate everyone from using the exact same cards just because they are the best. This system also as stated before will allow the good devoted players to shine instead of everything revolving around RNG.
 
The only game that I have ever seen do micro-transactions well was TF2. It's entire economy is based on buying trivial cosmetic upgrades which literally have zero to do with gameplay - well, there are a few crappy weapons that you can buy, but you can't "pay to win."

I really don't like the idea of someone just plunking down on the couch, dropping $50 on cards and then competing against people who have poured dozens of hours into the game.

Prediction: there is going to be an in-game market or some other micro-transactions in CP 2077. Once this stuff starts, it never ends.
 
@Pug. I don't think so. One is a free-to-obtain game, the other will be sold as a full-fledged one. Of course they are going to have to sell some stuff to earn some money, as they can't from the game itself (it's free). You might say "They could have asked like $10 for the game". But I'd say a small game like this needs a huge following to be logical (even competitively), and the only way to do that is to give it for free. If they only provide cosmetic stuff, it'll be totally fine. I don't expect them to sell the packs themselves, but we'll see.

Edit: Btw, I saw one of your posts on another topic, so I wanted to discuss that question as well :) It's the one that's like "I wish there was a premium version for $60". There are a few problems with this, I believe. First of all, it's crazy steep for a card game. But let's get past that. Would this version include all unlockable cards? If so, this is pay to win, because the free players will have to earn in game currency to get these cards while you have them from the beginning. It's actually more pay to win, compared to the current free to play plans, if they sell only cosmetic stuff. If you are arguing that they should just sell the game for a price and not have a free version, then there are also issues: Will all cards be unlocked for everyone from the beginning (since they are paying premium for this)? If so, you lose most of the content of the game, as it is about "getting" the cards themselves (collectable card game). If not, you are limiting your competitive player market by A LOT by selling the game itself.

Like I said, I believe the best way to go would be to release it free to play, and sell only cosmetic stuff. IF they are going to sell packs, it should be fairly easy to earn them using in-game money as well (But that would leave a bad taste, I agree).
 
Last edited:
I am confident, that CD Project will not add any content available for real money exchange, like Booster-Packs or such. That act would break their ideals and Gwent would end as another pay-to-win title.

As for me, I'll support CD Project the best way I can, buying the game on all my platforms for PC, PS4 and Android.
I'd even buy any kind of retail Collector's Edition Pack, if they're going to release one for PC only.
It's fine for me to pay the extra for the different platforms, since I want to support CD Projekt that way.

I really enjoyed Gwent in The Witcher 3 and I am ready for a standalone version of this.
Kudos to you CD Projekt! :)
 
Last edited:
The only game that I have ever seen do micro-transactions well was TF2. It's entire economy is based on buying trivial cosmetic upgrades which literally have zero to do with gameplay - well, there are a few crappy weapons that you can buy, but you can't "pay to win."

I really don't like the idea of someone just plunking down on the couch, dropping $50 on cards and then competing against people who have poured dozens of hours into the game.

Prediction: there is going to be an in-game market or some other micro-transactions in CP 2077. Once this stuff starts, it never ends.

I can really see why you are sceptical about micro-transactions. It's true that they often just diminishes a game to an easy cash grab. But i still think this will work out great!
This is of course my own subjective opinion, but i think the micro-transactions have worked out extremely well in Hearthstone. I love playing Hearthstone, even though i have never ever even poured a single dollar into my hearthstone experience. Gwent is of course not the same thing, but they are both collectible card games. I don't think they will be that different in that manner.

I actually think that card games might be the only video game-genre where micro-transactions can work really well. Still, we'll have to see, and you have reasons to have your opinion. But from my experiences, this concept seems to work better than you might expect at first :)
 
I can really see why you are sceptical about micro-transactions. It's true that they often just diminishes a game to an easy cash grab. But i still think this will work out great!
This is of course my own subjective opinion, but i think the micro-transactions have worked out extremely well in Hearthstone. I love playing Hearthstone, even though i have never ever even poured a single dollar into my hearthstone experience. Gwent is of course not the same thing, but they are both collectible card games. I don't think they will be that different in that manner.

I actually think that card games might be the only video game-genre where micro-transactions can work really well. Still, we'll have to see, and you have reasons to have your opinion. But from my experiences, this concept seems to work better than you might expect at first :)

I don't agree.
Better way is to reward the player through its mechanics, as this should be for all games out there.

Real money always compromises the in-game economy, because people can pay the hell out for it in order to achieve best items. This is like cheating.
Consider this and think about it!

Would it not be more rewarding to play through the game in order to obtain the best cards? Would it not be more challanging and more fun compared to just buy it using your real money? What about those who doesn't have much money, but would like to enjoy playing it with others? This wouldn't be fair for those, would be?
A game shall not make any differences for players, this is also why there are rules for most games! Adding but real-money exchange for micro-transactions breaks this concept in its whole.

btw.
Actually Hearthstone is pay-to-win, unless you play Arena only.
 
Last edited:
I have the same doubts about pay2win.... Well, time will tell. Too early to complain now.
 
Real money always compromises the in-game economy, because people can pay the hell out for it in order to achieve best items. This is like cheating.

Would it not be more rewarding to play through the game in order to obtain the best cards? Would it not be more challanging and more fun compared to just buy it using your real money? What about those who doesn't have much money, but would like to enjoy playing it with others? This wouldn't be fair for those, would be?
A game shall not make any differences for players. Adding real-money exchange for micro-transactions breaks this concept in its whole.

Back in the old days we had cheat codes, now we have microtransactions... :D

There has been comforting words in this thread, but I'm still a bit skeptical. Like I said somewhere earlier, we just have to trust REDS that they can make this work fair and square. Maybe there is really good reason for using money once we see this in action. Something that doesn't include buying stronger cards.
 
I really don't like the idea of someone just plunking down on the couch, dropping $50 on cards and then competing against people who have poured dozens of hours into the game.

Things like this only happen in shit-tier MMOs. Here we'll get ranked matchmaking with divisions and Pro-League (again, info from GwentDB), so pouring tons of money won't help to shortcut the road to the top very much.

And another model could be applied simultaneously: in Blood Bowl 2 it is forbidden to enter official competitive online tournaments with high-level teams (though it's entirely free), all must start in equal basic conditions.

So if we'll get 4 separate modes (singleplayer, friendlies, ranked and Pro League) where only first two or three will be affected by micro-transactions, it still won't break anything.
 
So if we'll get 4 separate modes (singleplayer, friendlies, ranked and Pro League) where only first two or three will be affected by micro-transactions, it still won't break anything.

What you say is contradictory.

It breaks the mechanics the moment, when game-features are affected by it. So when you say "singleplayer", "friendlies" and "ranked" are affected, what else persists? I don't want to play Pro League at the first place, I want to enjoy the whole game, fairly, decent and having fun with everyone I play with or against them...

However, as I mentioned before, I am confident that CD Projekt won't add any micro-transactions anyway. This'll lead the game to be a big success imo.
 
I don't agree.
Better way is to reward the player through its mechanics, as this should be for all games out there.

Real money always compromises the in-game economy, because people can pay the hell out for it in order to achieve best items. This is like cheating.
Consider this and think about it!

Would it not be more rewarding to play through the game in order to obtain the best cards? Would it not be more challanging and more fun compared to just buy it using your real money? What about those who doesn't have much money, but would like to enjoy playing it with others? This wouldn't be fair for those, would be?
A game shall not make any differences for players, this is also why there are rules for most games. Adding real-money exchange for micro-transactions breaks this concept in its whole.

btw.
Actually Hearthstone is pay-to-win, unless you play Arena only.

Your arguments are really valid! What you are mentioning are very good reasons to not go play-for-free :) And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that free-to-play is better, it probably isn't. I'm just saying that i, myself, think that it might not be as catastrophic as some do :)
But can i add some food to your thoughts? :)

Firstly. Did you really read my post thoroughly? I'm not trying to be rude, i really do. The argument about people not having money to spend and therefor meeting unfair challenges is huge. But as i said, i haven't spent any money on Hearthstone, and i have just now started getting into arena. I am exactly the kind of person you are worrying about with that argument, and i don't think it's that bad :) i don't like getting everything served on a silver plate. Well, not always at least. So not spending any money can be a nice challenge i think. For me at least.
To be fair though, i will probably buy the adventures some time in the future, the cards are good, they're fun and i want to support the developer. But right now it's a fun challenge, just because i can't spend money on it. But this is just me. What you are saying is true. that might really worsen the game experience for potentially a lot of people. That is still a very good reason to not go free-to-play.

My second thought:
You say that buying in-game items is kinda like cheating, and that is a really good point! That is one of the reasons why i haven't bought anything from Hs yet. It's true, it kinda does feel like cheating. During my time with Hs i have of course met my fair share opponents with perfect net-decks with all the required legendaries and struggled alot. That kinda sucks, but consider this.
Have you played a real life card game like MTG or Pokemon TCG? Because that shit is Pay-to-win beyond what Hs and (probably) Gwent will ever come close to. Since the cards are real, you have to pay. But that's just how the nature of those games are. You can view it from the angle, that not having to spend a lot of money and actually being able to pay for free is kinda generous compared to real life card games. :)

That's just a few of my thoughts. You are fairly probably right. It might be unfair. I'm just trying to threw in some different views into debate that i don't think get looked upon too often :)

Here is an argument though, i'm interested in your thoughts on it. How would you design a good full-price card game? Not having all cards from the get-go and the slow grind to getting all the good cards is half the fun for me. How would you like the process of getting new cards in the game be done? Would you want all the cards being there from the start or would you just want to have a way of getting booster packs in-game without money. Because the latter can be hard to balance.

I hope i don't sound hostile. I like your comment and i like the debate. Thanks for the response, and have a good day! I look forward to the rest of your thoughts :)

Best wishes
/Sammpemannen
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom