Your Fears For the Game - Combined Thread

[AdamTaylor]

The problem is that any MT that are implemented, are done so for a very specific reason. The game is built to hold you back so that players feel that desire to buy them. Cosmetics on a MT system is content that could have been implemented into the game from the start or added as valuable content in later DLC. Xp boosters are there because the game is built so the player needlessly grinds for unreasonable amounts of time. Currency boosters are no different as it should be a system built within the game.

Well, not always. I mean, Shadow of War has loot boxes, but they're not needed. The game isn't designed as a grind if you don't use them. In fact, it will likely take you LONGER to beat the game if you try to rely on loot boxes than if you just play normally.
But yes, a game where they design the game around the mtx system is generally a bad one. Because it means without using it, you're basically hurting your gameplay (either making things inaccessible or forcing a lot of grinding). I would much rather just see DLC instead of mtx. Though honestly I don't see CDPR putting microtransactions in. They have no reason to. With Shadow of War, WB basically told the devs that an mtx system was required. So the devs put one in that was as harmless as possible. They didn't build the game around it, but rather just tacked in on as an afterthought. Which made it harmless.

 

[Guest 4149880]

I am just hoping that there are no micro transactions or loot boxes in Cyberpunk 2077. It would suck honestly, and I would hate for that to happen with this game or any CDPR titles.

I wouldn't think CDPR would attempt this at all. They're an independent developer without any pressure or tyrannical control from publishers. Plus their 100% relying on positive consumer reputation because they don't have that fall back of other devs with massive parent companies that would catch them if they fail. And using Witcher 3 success to try and rope people into their future experimental pay models would probably be a huge mistake if they want to have continued success and retain that, not stating they would, only hoping they wouldn't.

 

[AdamTaylor]

Yeah, it doesn't seem like something they'd have any cause to do.

 

[Guest 4149880]

Well, not always. I mean, Shadow of War has loot boxes, but they're not needed. The game isn't designed as a grind if you don't use them. In fact, it will likely take you LONGER to beat the game if you try to rely on loot boxes than if you just play normally.
But yes, a game where they design the game around the mtx system is generally a bad one. Because it means without using it, you're basically hurting your gameplay (either making things inaccessible or forcing a lot of grinding). I would much rather just see DLC instead of mtx. Though honestly I don't see CDPR putting microtransactions in. They have no reason to. With Shadow of War, WB basically told the devs that an mtx system was required. So the devs put one in that was as harmless as possible. They didn't build the game around it, but rather just tacked in on as an afterthought. Which made it harmless.

I don't agree that its harmless. The fact they're even implementing the MT system is enough to show what they're really after here. Some companies are only starting to slowing implement MT like Shadow of War while others are going all in, and even if its only a remote success, I guarantee they'll just keep trying to further push it. Not so harmless

 

[AdamTaylor]

I don't agree that its harmless. The fact they're even implementing the MT system is enough to show what they're really after here. Some companies are only starting to slowing implement MT like Shadow of War while others are going all in, and even if its only a remote success, I guarantee they'll just keep trying to further push it. Not so harmless

Well, it's been a thing for quite some time. And it's not going away. It's far too profitable. Now, naturally the choice is up to the publishers. As stated, it was WB that wanted the microtransaction system in their game, not the devs. Which is why we got such a harmless system. Unlike say companies like EA or Ubisoft, who basically design a microtransaction system and then try to half-assedly slap a game around it as a delivery platform.

But even when it is a thing, it doesn't have to be a bad thing. Is Shadow of War's mtx system needed in any way? No. Was the game set up to push the system? No. Did they make a ton of money off of the useless mtx system? Yes.

I've watched game dev conferences where they've basically sat down and talked about the best ways to implement mtx systems. And yes, there are companies out there that aren't bothering with it. But they are the minority. Most game companies are set up as corporations first and foremost. All that matters to them is the bottom line. They're not setting out to make the best games possible, they're setting out to make the most profitable PRODUCT possible. And mtx is just a way for them to print money. You do have companies like CDPR and HareBrained and all who are gamers making games for gamers. And they're going to do good business for that fact alone.

 

[Snowflakez]

So this is one of the games i've been watching since its inception and the first news releases on the internet. I have great respect for CD Projekt Red and the games they have made. I applaud their GOG system and continually direct friends and people in my everyday life to go to them for games due to their respect for their customers by Not adding useless and potentially harmful DRM systems to their games.

But if I see loot boxes and a real-money micro-transaction system set up for buying them in Cyberpunk, I will not buy it.

Now I realize that i'm akin to the proverbial Canary in the Coal Mine when it comes to this stuff. And very likely the game will do fine even if these things are added in. But it will cause me to lose a significant amount of respect for CD Projekt Red as a publisher/developer, and cause me to seriously consider not doing business with them in the future.

EA has already lost my business due to their activities in this regard. I didn't buy the latest Deus Ex title because of the included Micro-Transactions, and I love that series and have purchased and played all the rest of them when they came out. This has also caused me to not purchase many games lately for the same reason, I did not and will not buy, Shadow of MoreDollars, Destiny 2, Star Wars Battlefront 2. And likely EA's upcoming Anthem title i'll avoid for the same reason.

I suspect eventually the rest of the market will catch up with me on this and EA will see a large falloff because of the way they are mistreating their customers. Much in the same way the Mobile Gaming market is no longer talked about as being 'the next big thing' because they milked the public dry by turning the platform into a micro-transaction laden hell-hole.

Please continue to treat your customers with respect by not including these potentially abusive systems into your games. If not, i'll be sad, and you'll probably still be successful. But I won't be playing your games.

@Sardukhar All due respect, but who are you to tell someone who isn't interested in buying into the "AAA" monetization methods that they're making a mistake? I mean no offense, but that's really not for you to decide. Some of us are sick to death of loot boxes in $60 single player games. If that's not you, fair enough, but I and others will continue to be vocal about this stuff, and we're completely right to do so.

On topic, I would be very, very surprised to see microtransactions of any kind in Cyberpunk 2077. There have been countless loot box controversies lately, and one company has actually removed them from their game entirely (Dauntless). CDPR is known for being "for the fans," rather than "for the money." Loot boxes add NOTHING to a game if they come in the form of microtransactions. Literally nothing. Would TW3 be a better game if it had microtransactions? Absolutely not.

That said, nobody here can predict the future. I would say, based on my own experience with CDPR as a company and their gaming platform, GoG, that theres a 90%+ chance that the game doesn't have any form of microtransactions, let alone loot boxes. GoG and CDPR buck many trends that the so-called "AAA" gaming industry throws into their games, and that's a very good thing.

 

[Garrison72]

Not for loot boxes at all. A lame idea, and lamer still when progression mechanics in a game are built around them. I'm more than familiar with this after playing For Honor and a few other Ubi games. It doesn't ruin the experience, but it cheapens it. If it's in MP, so be it. But keep it the hell out of SP. CDPR prides themselves on being above certain industry trends, and this should be one of them.

 

[Guest 4149880]

Well, it's been a thing for quite some time. And it's not going away. It's far too profitable. Now, naturally the choice is up to the publishers. As stated, it was WB that wanted the microtransaction system in their game, not the devs. Which is why we got such a harmless system. Unlike say companies like EA or Ubisoft, who basically design a microtransaction system and then try to half-assedly slap a game around it as a delivery platform.

But even when it is a thing, it doesn't have to be a bad thing. Is Shadow of War's mtx system needed in any way? No. Was the game set up to push the system? No. Did they make a ton of money off of the useless mtx system? Yes.

I've watched game dev conferences where they've basically sat down and talked about the best ways to implement mtx systems. And yes, there are companies out there that aren't bothering with it. But they are the minority. Most game companies are set up as corporations first and foremost. All that matters to them is the bottom line. They're not setting out to make the best games possible, they're setting out to make the most profitable PRODUCT possible. And mtx is just a way for them to print money. You do have companies like CDPR and HareBrained and all who are gamers making games for gamers. And they're going to do good business for that fact alone.

Actually MT's and how they're being used now is pretty new and very harmful the way most devs/publishers are implementing them. So one game used MT in a less is more kinda way, its serving their purpose still. And to say its not going away is naive, because a system like Mt's being used and abused across all forms of gaming will inevitably backfire, its just not reached that critical point quite yet as history has shown, nothing this good last forever. At least its only good for the companies, not the consumer. Just because its reach some form of success for these greedy companies doesn't mean its what the majority of consumers want, but when the majority of games include them now, gamers are getting less and less options for games even if they don't agree with it, its shrugged off and downplayed. No Empire last forever, especially when the cost is too high.

They talked about the best way to implement MT? I bet they did, right before they bent the audience over and then handed them a goody bag... because Shhhh... its ok. Its games as a service where the consumer serves them, because they aren't doing the consumer any favors with this trash.

 

[AdamTaylor]

Go watch some GDC videos and tell me mtx is going away. lol
Sorry, but it's here to stay, and will only be getting more and more prevalent. Sadly it's the mobile market that's proved what a cash cow it is. Naturally not ALL games are going to include mtx. But it is going to be more and more common.

And yes, if the system is abused too much, it will start to negatively affect sales for some companies. But as Assassin's Creed Origins has proven, MOST consumers (which is what most "gamers" are) will blindly buy the games regardless of how horrifically the mtx system is set up.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

@Sardukhar All due respect, but who are you to tell someone who isn't interested in buying into the "AAA" monetization methods that they're making a mistake?

Don’t sweat it. Sard is as close to a ”company man” as you can get without actually being hired (unless he did recently... could it be... yeah nevermind that). If it has a spiky red parrot and CDPR initials, it’s golden. He obviously means you miss out on an awesome experience (all the rest of the game outside this thread topic title) for your idealism, that’s the implied mistake, not so much the boycott of shitty business practices.

 

[metalmaniac21]

Come to think of it, I fear that Cyberpunk 2077 might not touch the same way Witcher series did. Witcher was a fantasy setting first and foremost, people like escaping into fantasy lands where some conventions are fine and some characters can be entertaining, even Geralt. Cyberpunk is not - we're already living in cyberpunk-ish future, where corporations rule the world, pushing their agendas when needed, we're already attached to machines and computers (emotionally or through some bullshit direct brain-to-PC connection - doesn't matter, Sard), people die behind PCs either due to overwork or inability to quit the virtual worlds. Only silly by present time representation of future technologies and wrong predictions remains. Come to think of it, Deus Ex stood the test of time by it's writing sensing where the wind flows and ended up being prophetic. Games set in real worlds need to be really unique to not flop. CDPR had to pull off a Deus Ex with CP2077. To demonstrate a completely new story for the genre. Ditch rebellion vs corporate goverment for example since it's overused trope. But please, no post-cyberpunk bullshit.

 

[Guest 4149880]

Go watch some GDC videos and tell me mtx is going away. lol
Sorry, but it's here to stay, and will only be getting more and more prevalent. Sadly it's the mobile market that's proved what a cash cow it is. Naturally not ALL games are going to include mtx. But it is going to be more and more common.

And yes, if the system is abused too much, it will start to negatively affect sales for some companies. But as Assassin's Creed Origins has proven, MOST consumers (which is what most "gamers" are) will blindly buy the games regardless of how horrifically the mtx system is set up.

It will only stay as long as its being supported, for now yes but even as the mobile market has shown, it will fall apart incrementally over time. People will be worn out from the constant barrage of MT's just as the mobile market. Sure its made money, no doubt but at a high cost and the degeneration of the actual value of the content and product. I don't care what developers have to say at GDC, they will always have plans to continue to remain profitable in the business but it doesn't always go the way they predict, the gaming industry is full of trends that have failed, even ones that start very successfully. Many times In the industry when the majority didn't agree and they had to make changes
and Mt's are no exception, the only different is, even if only a small percentage of a games total player base buys MT's repeatedly, its still profitable to the company.

There is no "if" when it comes to the abuse of MT's, its happening now and with full force from the developers and publishers with blatant disregard for their player base. But you are right about players blindly buying into an obviously bad system without a second thought for now, which basically brings me way back to my original point where the business of Mt's is relatively new. Its going to be interesting to see gaming in 5 to 10 years if this shit gets worse.

 

[AdamTaylor]

It will only stay as long as its being supported, for now yes but even as the mobile market has shown, it will fall apart incrementally over time. People will be worn out from the constant barrage of MT's just as the mobile market. Sure its made money, no doubt but at a high cost and the degeneration of the actual value of the content and product.

Actually, that's NOT what has been shown. Usage and financial reports have shown that the number of people spending on mtx is steadily increasing. While the number of people spending $1-100 a year on mtx is starting to plateau, the number of people spending $100+ a year is still increasing. Simply put, mtx is getting more and more profitable over time. So it will be ever more common as companies focus on using it to supplement their game sales.

And of course there's companies that are already abusing mtx. As stated EA and Ubisoft are prime examples of that. Yet despite all the garbage they pull, they still make insane sales of their games (and the consequent tsunami of income from mtx). They're not going to stop any time soon. Fortunately most companies aren't like them, and companies that focus on making games for the gamers shouldn't ever stoop to their level. Hopefully.

And mtx isn't really all that new. Games like League of Legends and other MOBA, not to mention MMO's of all shapes and sizes, have been using them for ages. Mtx is simply more common in single player games these days than in past years. But even then, it's not entirely new. In 5 to 10 years, mtx will unfortunately be a staple in games. What remains to be seen is just how different companies choose to implement them.

 

[Snowflakez]

I am opposed to microtransactions in single player games on principle. But that's not going to stop me buying an amazing game as long as the mtx isn't bad.

Shadow of War for example, is a great way of handling the whole "loot box" thing. Firstly, because they are not required in ANY way. You never once have to buy a loot box to proceed. They're not needed to "get an advantage" and they're never pushed on the player. You're told about the market once, then the game shuts up about it. You also have boxes purchasable with in game currency, which is good, as they're not forcing people to actually spend real money. There are "better" boxes you can buy with gold (which costs money), but they're basically just better rarity chance stuff, not guaranteed item X or anything like that. Plus there's daily quests and such which get you gold anyway. So simply playing the game will get you those regardless.
But another important factor is that the stuff from loot boxes isn't "better" than what you get in game. In fact, most of the time, it's worse. The main mechanic in the game is dominating orcs to add to your army. You want to find orcs with good skill sets. There are epic and legendary orcs, which basically just get an extra ability or two. But the common orcs can be just as good, and are more likely to be because you're far more likely to see a common orc with a "perfect" skill set as opposed to legendary ones. So while you can get guaranteed legendary orcs through gold loot boxes, they're most often going to be complete garbage, just like the orcs from free loot boxes, because they all just get randomized skills. So 9 out of 10 orcs you get from a box will just be worthless. You can and will find better by just playing, plus the ones you encounter as you play can be customized and improved by player actions. So you can "craft" perfect orcs easily.
So, sure, you could buy a bunch of loot boxes (with in game currency or real money) to get a bunch of orcs real quick... but they're pretty much going to be garbage. Or you could take 10-30 minutes dominating an uber army by, you know, PLAYING THE GAME.

Meanwhile you have games like Assassin's Creed Origins, where there is content that is ONLY AVAILABLE THROUGH PAID LOOT BOXES! THAT is just wrong, and is why I will NEVER be buying that game. I don't care if loot boxes are a shortcut, or contain boosters or anything like that. But if they are required to 100% a game, then they're done wrong. At the same time, the game has to NOT be designed around the mtx system. If microtransactions can give players a boost, that's fine. But if the game is designed to be a huge grind unless you buy the mtx... then that's a definitely red flag and something on my "never buy" list.

If they do put mtx in CP, I'm hoping it's going to be non-invasion and completely unneeded. Maybe gear or something (that you could get anyway by just playing). Or say XP (or CP equivalent) or money boosters, so you earn say 5-10% more for an hour... fine. Cosmetics... eh... I'm not a fan of those being locked away behind a paywall. But if they are going to have cosmetic items behind a paywall, just set it up as DLC and be done with it.

Shadow of War is a terrible example. The game has always been about building relationships with your orcs, meeting them and building up your personal story with them over time. Now you can open a pack and poop out 5 orcs, with no history between the two of you. Additionally, the end game is locked behind a massive grind, made far easier by purchasing these loot boxes. I've played the game myself. It's a good game, a really good game even. But it's hardly the poster child of non-intrusive microtransactions... Overwatch would be a better example, though I'm still opposed to them there as well. Everything is strictly cosmetic, the game isn't balanced around them, etc.

 

[Snowflakez]

Don’t sweat it. Sard is as close to a ”company man” as you can get without actually being hired (unless he did recently... could it be... yeah nevermind that). If it has a spiky red parrot and CDPR initials, it’s golden. He obviously means you miss out on an awesome experience (all the rest of the game outside this thread topic title) for your idealism, that’s the implied mistake, not so much the boycott of shitty business practices.

Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, as I said, I meant no disrespect either way, "company man" or not. This is just a topic I'm very passionate about. It's one of those things everyone wants me to shut up about, but as long as there's microtransactions (and worse, loot boxes) in single player $60 games, I don't see that happening anytime soon. lol

And yeah, I'm sure CP2077 will be fantastic no matter what. And honestly, if there's one company I believe could pull off non-intrusive SP microtransactions, it's them - but I firmly believe the game won't have them at all. Fanboyism aside, CDPR has proven themselves to be fan first, and fan first is not gating content (yes, even content that can be earned in game) of any kind behind microtransactions, implementing a hefty grind for everybody else.

Like I said, it could happen, but I find it very, very unlikely.

 

[AdamTaylor]

Shadow of War is a terrible example. The game has always been about building relationships with your orcs, meeting them and building up your personal story with them over time. Now you can open a pack and poop out 5 orcs, with no history between the two of you. Additionally, the end game is locked behind a massive grind, made far easier by purchasing these loot boxes. I've played the game myself. It's a good game, a really good game even. But it's hardly the poster child of non-intrusive microtransactions... Overwatch would be a better example, though I'm still opposed to them there as well. Everything is strictly cosmetic, the game isn't balanced around them, etc.

Except that the orcs you get out of loot boxes are random crap, whereas the orcs you find and build up in the field are the ones you will get attached to. So again, it makes the loot boxes even more useless.

And no, the end game IS NOT a massive grind. That is the same lie that's been going around since before the game was even released. Countless people have now gone through Act 4. And there is no grind. There's a bunch of siege battles that you have to go through. And the players are DEMANDING that the company adds more. That's something they've already confirmed is going to be added as a free update when the first DLC is released. So please try PLAYING THE GAME before spreading the lies the Youtube idiots spread for attention. The loot boxes DO NOT make Act 4 "easier", they in fact make it MUCH harder, as trying to use the garbage orcs you get out of loot boxes will make the battles far harder than if you grab quality orcs from the field.

Hell, I wanted Act 4 to last far longer than it did. There was no grind there. At all. There was a surprising lack of content if anything. Which fortunately is being fixed.

Loot boxes in Shadow of War ARE NOT required. Quite the opposite. They're never forced on the player, they're never required to progress or even make things easier. The game isn't balanced around the loot boxes. The game is balanced around people PLAYING THE GAME. Anyone claiming different clearly has not played through it all.

As for Overwatch, that is an example of loot boxes which aren't required... however, they are a main focus of the game. The cosmetics in that game are a huge draw. It's all about getting the looks and emotes and voice lines to customize your character to your personal tastes. Blizzard makes an insane amount of money off of loot box sales. Especially with every event that comes out with more and more "limited time" skins. They push people to buy as many loot boxes as possible to get all the unique skins.

 

[Snowflakez]

Except that the orcs you get out of loot boxes are random crap, whereas the orcs you find and build up in the field are the ones you will get attached to. So again, it makes the loot boxes even more useless.

And no, the end game IS NOT a massive grind. That is the same lie that's been going around since before the game was even released. Countless people have now gone through Act 4. And there is no grind. There's a bunch of siege battles that you have to go through. And the players are DEMANDING that the company adds more. That's something they've already confirmed is going to be added as a free update when the first DLC is released. So please try PLAYING THE GAME before spreading the lies the Youtube idiots spread for attention. The loot boxes DO NOT make Act 4 "easier", they in fact make it MUCH harder, as trying to use the garbage orcs you get out of loot boxes will make the battles far harder than if you grab quality orcs from the field.

Hell, I wanted Act 4 to last far longer than it did. There was no grind there. At all. There was a surprising lack of content if anything. Which fortunately is being fixed.

Loot boxes in Shadow of War ARE NOT required. Quite the opposite. They're never forced on the player, they're never required to progress or even make things easier. The game isn't balanced around the loot boxes. The game is balanced around people PLAYING THE GAME. Anyone claiming different clearly has not played through it all.

As for Overwatch, that is an example of loot boxes which aren't required... however, they are a main focus of the game. The cosmetics in that game are a huge draw. It's all about getting the looks and emotes and voice lines to customize your character to your personal tastes. Blizzard makes an insane amount of money off of loot box sales. Especially with every event that comes out with more and more "limited time" skins. They push people to buy as many loot boxes as possible to get all the unique skins.

I guess you didn't see the part where I said I've actually played the game. I've beaten the game. I've played through Act 4. Yes, there is a grind. A large grind, at that. It's fine if you didn't find it grindy, but according to the press and plenty of others, it absolutely was.

Your Orcs die easier than ever in Shadow of War, sometimes for no reason whatsoever - I've had orcs die within literal seconds of sieging a keep. Seconds. And those were not just normal, run-of-the-mill orcs. Maybe I'm unlucky, but it happened repeatedly. I thought it was due to their weaknesses or something like that, but nope. It seemed like the only way to successfully take a keep was to infiltrate all of your orcs as bodyguards (leading to the 1-on-1 RNG dueling issues I'm about to mention), turning any potential challenge into a cakewalk.

Let's also not forget the 1-on-1 orc duels that weren't present in the previous game. The outcome is 100% RNG. Watch Jim Sterling's video on the subject if you want to see for yourself, but I've personally experienced my orcs (usually many, many levels higher than the other orc) get absolutely crushed because they just stand there and get staggered repeatedly. It's a ridiculous system, intended to push loot boxes even more. "Crap, my legendary Orc died! Hmm...Well, I COULD go and try to replace him through normal gameplay, which could take a long time...Or I can just buy this cheap loot box and get an instant replacement!"

There is no excuse for these 1-on-1, RNG based battles. Mordor didn't have them - duels, ambushes, everything all let Talion (the player) interact and assist to a degree - at the very least, you could shoot down assisting orcs to make it easier for your follower to succeed.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. As I said before, if I seem passionate about it, it's because I am. It's OK if you and others don't see them as intrusive - but I do, and I'm going to keep saying that until they go away, even if that never happens.

 

[AdamTaylor]

No, it didn't feel like a grind at all. None of my friends thought so, neither did countless players on the Steam forums. And the Youtubers and articles that went on about "the grind" and how the game was based around lootboxes released those tidbits without actually reaching that point in the game. Several sites even ended up posting retractions about it.

Orcs dying as soon as a siege starts are usually the result of them being on a wall when it's destroyed. That's automatically fatal to all those on the wall.
You don't need legendary orcs to win sieges. Technically you don't need anything beyond Talion himself really, but they definitely help. What you do want is GOOD orcs, which is entirely based on their skill setup, which has nothing to do with their rarity. And it's far easier to find uber orcs through gameplay than by buying loot boxes, which just give you garbage orcs with tons of crippling abilities.

And yes, the pit fights are pretty crap, which is why nobody relies on them. You COULD try to infiltrate orcs into every spot in a fort... or you could just siege the thing and slaughter them all yourself. I mean, if you want to infiltrate, you still can, without too much hassle. But again, legendary orcs aren't needed for that. My conquering warband was mostly common orcs. The important thing was that they had lots of immunities and no weaknesses. Meanwhile the legendaries I found were semi-decent most of the time. Orcs from loot boxes though, they're just useless 99% of the time. It's easier and faster to build up an invincible army by simply playing. If it's taking you a "long time" to replace a single orc... you're definitely doing something massively wrong. Any orc I lose is easily replaced within 10 minutes if that.

All the complaints I see on the Steam forums about how impossible it is to build up an army without loot boxes always comes down to people thinking that for some reason they can ONLY win with legendary orcs. Which simply isn't true. When these same people go back and just focus on getting orcs with good skills, instead of legendaries, they suddenly see that there is absolutely no grind to it. Hell, people are beating the game in about 10 hours a run at this point. Which honestly is kind of sad. That's not even a dedicated speed run, that's just not being pointlessly picky with their orcs.

Now that's not to say that there isn't enjoyment to be had in making some very specific fort setups. I've seen a guy who's entire fort is nothing but singing orcs. Another had all orcs who had the same name. I had put together a fort full of silent orcs (none of them actually spoke, only started silently or hissed or growled at you). And sure, THAT is going to take time. But that's my choice. That's not the game being grindy, that's me choosing to grind to make something super specific.

The game itself is short as hell. And the game is definitely not designed with loot boxes in mind.

And I can respect you not wanting mtx in your games. I feel the same. Thing is, no matter what we think, they will NEVER be going away. Not until money no longer becomes a thing.

 

[Snowflakez]

No, it didn't feel like a grind at all. None of my friends thought so, neither did countless players on the Steam forums. And the Youtubers and articles that went on about "the grind" and how the game was based around lootboxes released those tidbits without actually reaching that point in the game. Several sites even ended up posting retractions about it.

Orcs dying as soon as a siege starts are usually the result of them being on a wall when it's destroyed. That's automatically fatal to all those on the wall.
You don't need legendary orcs to win sieges. Technically you don't need anything beyond Talion himself really, but they definitely help. What you do want is GOOD orcs, which is entirely based on their skill setup, which has nothing to do with their rarity. And it's far easier to find uber orcs through gameplay than by buying loot boxes, which just give you garbage orcs with tons of crippling abilities.

And yes, the pit fights are pretty crap, which is why nobody relies on them. You COULD try to infiltrate orcs into every spot in a fort... or you could just siege the thing and slaughter them all yourself. I mean, if you want to infiltrate, you still can, without too much hassle. But again, legendary orcs aren't needed for that. My conquering warband was mostly common orcs. The important thing was that they had lots of immunities and no weaknesses. Meanwhile the legendaries I found were semi-decent most of the time. Orcs from loot boxes though, they're just useless 99% of the time. It's easier and faster to build up an invincible army by simply playing. If it's taking you a "long time" to replace a single orc... you're definitely doing something massively wrong. Any orc I lose is easily replaced within 10 minutes if that.

All the complaints I see on the Steam forums about how impossible it is to build up an army without loot boxes always comes down to people thinking that for some reason they can ONLY win with legendary orcs. Which simply isn't true. When these same people go back and just focus on getting orcs with good skills, instead of legendaries, they suddenly see that there is absolutely no grind to it. Hell, people are beating the game in about 10 hours a run at this point. Which honestly is kind of sad. That's not even a dedicated speed run, that's just not being pointlessly picky with their orcs.

Now that's not to say that there isn't enjoyment to be had in making some very specific fort setups. I've seen a guy who's entire fort is nothing but singing orcs. Another had all orcs who had the same name. I had put together a fort full of silent orcs (none of them actually spoke, only started silently or hissed or growled at you). And sure, THAT is going to take time. But that's my choice. That's not the game being grindy, that's me choosing to grind to make something super specific.

The game itself is short as hell. And the game is definitely not designed with loot boxes in mind.

And I can respect you not wanting mtx in your games. I feel the same. Thing is, no matter what we think, they will NEVER be going away. Not until money no longer becomes a thing.

Yeah, I don't disagree with you there. They are definitely only going to get worse in major AAA games from publishers like EA, Warner Brothers, etc. - but, fortunately, I don't care much about their games anyway (Shadow of War was an exception). Companies like Bethesda -- Creation Club aside -- have also proven to be pretty reliable as far as their own developed games go, as has CDPR, TaleWorlds, etc... I'll gladly keep buying my games from them, I could care less about the next Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs, etc.

Anyway, thanks for discussing. I see where you're coming from. I still maintain that I don't like the shift from building a relationship with orcs to this encouraged "Recycling" of orcs in SoW, though, but that's mostly a personal thing and I concede most of your other points. I just really liked how attached (or detached) you could get to orcs in Mordor, even though they were lacking some of the depth they have in SoW.

 

[AdamTaylor]

It does tend to be more an issue between devs and publishers. CDPR, TaleWorlds, Bethesda and such companies both develop and publish their own games, so they're in full control. But for many devs, they're not the ones actually publishing the games, and it's those publishers that are forcing the mtx systems in. That's why with Shadow of War, the devs got to make it as non-impacting as possible, while you see the games coming from EA and Ubisoft being built the other way. EA comes up with an mtx system, and then tells a dev to make a game that will incorporate it. Star Wars Battlefront 2 was going to have a truly horrific system, which has been changed because of all the bad press they were getting. It wasn't that players were upset, EA could care less about them, it was that investors were starting to pull out, so they had to make a change to keep THEM satisfied that the game would still meet their profit margins (which are ridiculous). SWB2 is still going to have a very bad mtx system, but sadly the sales will still go through the roof based on the franchise alone.

As for the orcs and connection with them, I do somewhat agree that there is a bit less of a connect with how expendable they can be. However they did give us ways to keep orcs alive in some form. We can rescue them when they're bleeding out, and we can also put necromancy to work.
So far I've become quite attached to a lot of my orcs. But I think that the different ways they can be killed is also a good thing. Because now, I can lose an orc I felt attached to, and it impacts me. I feel sad when a favourite orc is lost. In Shadow of Mordor... this was never really an issue. Once I had an orc, he was just there, I knew I'd never lose him unless I chose to get rid of him. So really this new "high risk" system makes you MORE attached to the orcs, and makes you want to try harder to take care of them. I've had sieges where I've had orcs bleeding out on different sides of the fort, and I had to decide which one to go save. I think that sense of peril and loss really builds up the game and makes it feel a lot more "alive".