Metal Gear Solid 5 apparently has micro-transactions

[baddude1337]

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/06/10/metal-gear-solid-5-the-phantom-pain-has-optional-microtransactions

http://www.gamepur.com/news/19117-journalist-might-have-found-micro-transactions-metal-gear-solid-v-phantom.html

"I believe to have found micro-transactions in the game. When you are expanding your base, you generally assign labors to a team. You can even send groups of soldiers to complete simple missions by paying them.

The problem is that once I requested an operation that would last, say 4 hours, I noticed an option to finish it immediately. After selecting it, I got an error message that indicated that certain options were not available without PSN access. Does it mean it requires a payment to be authorized to complete these time related tasks?"

If it's true, this is simply further evidence to Konami being Konami. After all, fans have already been expected to pay for effectively a demo, and the game has a higher than normal RRP (£60 here in the UK on PC, that's about $92 USD).

It remains to be seen if they have been shoehorned in, or if the entire Mother Base economy has been built around them.

I really despise the idea of IAP's in AAA games, so I already have huge reservation about actually getting the game now until it's confirmed if they are actually in it, and how much they affect the games balance.

Any thoughts Escapists?

 

[tippy2k2]

The same thoughts I have for any of these; until it actually affects my game, I don't care all that much.

You could argue that it becomes a slippery slope and if they get away with it now they'll just push it until you HAVE to buy stuff on top of your $60 game but until they actually commit that crime, I will let it go.

There are people who for some reason don't have the time or the patience to unlock things the "normal" way; if they want to spend their hard earned money skipping sections of the game, this gives them the option.

 

[baddude1337]

The same thoughts I have for any of these; until it actually affects my game, I don't care all that much.

And that's the point that remains to be seen. If it's something along the lines of Battlefield kit unlocks people won't care too much, but if the Mother Base economy is designed around it, and pushes you to pay, then I will have a problem.

I'm still of the opinion AAA games shouldn't even have micro-transactions though, especially as MGS 5 seems to have a high than usual RRP in most regions. It's kind of bad enough we are hearing about this only due to a press leak, and Konami apparently tried to suppress it.

I'm also concerned about the whole sneaking into other players bases part. If people can pay to get a better Mother Base off the bat, then that will make it much harder for those who didn't at the start, effectively turning that component into a "pay to win" mode. That is the pessimist in me talking though, we shall see if it has any real effect on it.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Will wait and see if its true first but seeing as how Konami has been acting lately I would not be surprised if they try and milk it for all its worth.

But really I dont see any reason why a game like Metal Gear would benefit from micro transactions at least from a consumer standpoint. If its to bad I just wont buy it just like I didnt buy their overpriced demo, but I did get it free on PSN. This micro transaction bs is just getting out of hand and im getting tired of it and I dont think im the only one.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

It's Konami, Why wouldn't it have micro-transactions at this point? These guys don't care about this consumer demographic or the platform they are putting this game on.

 

[Mutant1988]

The same thoughts I have for any of these; until it actually affects my game, I don't care all that much.

You could argue that it becomes a slippery slope and if they get away with it now they'll just push it until you HAVE to buy stuff on top of your $60 game but until they actually commit that crime, I will let it go.

There are people who for some reason don't have the time or the patience to unlock things the "normal" way; if they want to spend their hard earned money skipping sections of the game, this gives them the option.

Another option would be for developers to design their games without arbitrarily time wasting gameplay.

I maintain that the mere concept of micro-transactions demand worse game design, to even justify their existence. Because if it's not tedious and time wasting, why would you pay to skip it?

If this is true, then it seems like MGS:V will be another game to pick up once it hits the bargain bins.

Shame... I was really looking forward to it.

 

[Dandark]

No one ever thought to think that it could be exactly like ACIV's fleet missions where you can skip the wait by helping friends online? No? We just want to jump to conclusions with the usual "blah blah fuck Triple AAA micros-transactions blah blah" ? Sounds about par for the course on these forums.

There is a reason people jump to these conclusions. If AAA stopped doing this kind of stuff and stopped being so anti-consumer then maybe people wouldn't jump to the conclusion that AAA is being terrible again.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

No one ever thought to think that it could be exactly like ACIV's fleet missions where you can skip the wait by helping friends online? No? We just want to jump to conclusions with the usual "blah blah fuck Triple AAA micros-transactions blah blah" ? Sounds about par for the course on these forums.

Jumping to conclusions about microtransactions isn't a wrong thing to do. We've established a million fuckin' times already why microtransactions in full priced games are a bad thing. We failed to jump to conclusions time and time again and the publishers have used our naivete to make shittier and shittier games that require players to pay more and more to get the full fuckin' content. If we don't react to this like rabid dogs they'll just keep doing it and adding more and more micro-transactions that damage the core game and make the customer feel like he's not getting the full experience.

What kind of person in 21st century doesn't understand that corporations exist solely to MAXIMIZE profit? They will do ANYTHING to accomplish that. It's their fuckin' job. That's why they do stuff like this. If they get away with it once, they'll try it again and the next time they'll make it even less consumer-friendly to try to milk even more money out of you. That's simply what corporations do. You can't fight against their nature. You can only send them a message that you don't want that feature in their product by refusing to buy the product. Even if you buy the game and don't use micro-transactions, they'll just find a way to make you use micro-transactions next time. Maybe they'll make the game really inconvenient to play without them. This is not a slippery fuckin' slope either. Get it through your skulls already. It's the nature of their existence.

 

[baddude1337]

No one ever thought to think that it could be exactly like ACIV's fleet missions where you can skip the wait by helping friends online? No? We just want to jump to conclusions with the usual "blah blah fuck Triple AAA micros-transactions blah blah" ? Sounds about par for the course on these forums.

In addition to all the points above, The fleet mechanic wasn't a primary feature of the game. Mother Base is one of the main selling points and mechanics of the game, not to mention that itself has an online component, possibly bringing in pay to win into the mix. If the game was built around the IAP's then the economy stands a good chance of being imbalanced in favour of forcing you to pay up. Natrually, people are going to get jumpy when the hear stuff like this, even if it isn't yet confirmed to be IAP's.

Why would you even decry people not liking it? It's very anti-consumer. We shouldn't even have the option of them in a full priced game.

 

[tippy2k2]

The same thoughts I have for any of these; until it actually affects my game, I don't care all that much.

You could argue that it becomes a slippery slope and if they get away with it now they'll just push it until you HAVE to buy stuff on top of your $60 game but until they actually commit that crime, I will let it go.

There are people who for some reason don't have the time or the patience to unlock things the "normal" way; if they want to spend their hard earned money skipping sections of the game, this gives them the option.

Another option would be for developers to design their games without arbitrarily time wasting gameplay.

I maintain that the mere concept of micro-transactions demand worse game design, to even justify their existence. Because if it's not tedious and time wasting, why would you pay to skip it?

It could end up being that but I disagree about the "demands worse design" aspect (though I do agree that it increases the chance of bad design). If you need an example of the "tedious wait" gameplay working, XCOM is the perfect example.

If you're unfamiliar, in order to get any upgrades, you are required to research/build stuff, which takes X amount of in-game time. It forces you to think ahead and make sacrifices based on what you think gives you the best chance of victory.

We don't know what MGS Vs version of this will look like (it might not even be micro transactions as pointed out by leatherman). If it turns into a money grab that interferes with game play, I'll be right next to you at the bargain bin waiting for it to show up there but until we know more, I think people are jumping to conclusions (given Konami and their recent history, I can't blame people for that reaction).

 

[SweetShark]

This is not something new to talk about.
Many other games have microtra..trans...tr...f*cksomething and we don't complain.

++NEW CHALLENGER!!!!++
Name: SweetShark
Fighting Style: Shark-Bitter Words, Candy Rush and Furry/Ponies Defend Capoeira
Special Move: "T.I.T.S is indeed a title of a game"
Like: Sweets, Furries, MLP, Adventure Time, Don Rosa, THINK Song.
Hate: Tacos, Wolfs, Normal Sharks.

 

[Lufia Erim]

The same thoughts I have for any of these; until it actually affects my game, I don't care all that much.

You could argue that it becomes a slippery slope and if they get away with it now they'll just push it until you HAVE to buy stuff on top of your $60 game but until they actually commit that crime, I will let it go.

There are people who for some reason don't have the time or the patience to unlock t
hings the "normal" way; if they want to spend their hard earned money skipping sections of the game, this gives them the option.

but pay to win is already a thing. Or do you mean until it is in a game you personally like?

OT: i blame people who supported DLC. One thing leads to another.

 

[Mutant1988]

This is not something new to talk about.
Many other games have microtra..trans...tr...f*cksomething and we don't complain.

It's hard to complain about things that aren't within your realm of interest, or even remotely within your perception.

I don't even own a smartphone, so why would I incessantly complain about smart phone apps?

Dismissing a discussion because of a public disinterest, as you perceive it (That's important), is not really productive in any way.

"Have you been keeping up with the presidential elections in Namibia? I mean, you did say that democracy was important. I guess you don't really care about democracy then"

Is about the insane rationale you employ here. Who elected you the judge of what discussions are warranted at any given point in time anyway?

I can assure you though, I did complain about micro-transactions, even in the vague "back then" where "Many other games" had it.

I still do, because micro-transactions are still around and are now getting more prominent.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Uh...duh?
Its a AAA title in 2015! It'll be all of 4 hours long, with glitches and bugs, microtransactions and unnecessary multiplayer that'll be a graveyard 6 weeks after launch.

Why are we still surprised by this shit again?

 

[SweetShark]

This is not something new to talk about.
Many other games have microtra..trans...tr...f*cksomething and we don't complain.

It's hard to complain about things that aren't within your realm of interest, or even remotely within your perception.

I don't even own a smartphone, so why would I incessantly complain about smart phone apps?

Dismissing a discussion because of a public disinterest, as you perceive it (That's important), is not really productive in any way.

"Have you been keeping up with the presidential elections in Namibia? I mean, you did say that democracy was important. I guess you don't really care about democracy then"

Is about the insane rationale you employ here. Who elected you the judge of what discussions are warranted at any given point in time anyway?

I can assure you though, I did complain about micro-transactions, even in the vague "back then" where "Many other games" had it.

I still do, because micro-transactions are still around and are now getting more prominent.

Ok, ok, I will admit I am a little bored and not very bright to this kind of discussions, so that why I don't care so much.
However we must admit, the only reason we discuss this, is because is a well-known series.
Is something similar happen to another title, I am very sure we will not discuss it. At least not a lot of them.

 

[Mutant1988]

Ok, ok, I will admit I am a little bored and not very bright to this kind of discussions, so that why I don't care so much.
However we must admit, the only reason we discuss this, is because is a well-known series.
Is something similar happen to another title, I am very sure we will not discuss it. At least not a lot of them.

No, the only reason why we discuss this is because we don't like seeing the medium and games we like being ruined by exploitive and greedy designs.

It stands to reason that something that isn't popular is discussed less. But I do remember a lot of people taking issue with the Dungeon Keeper mobile app, far more than I presume had any interest in ever playing it.

I also recall there being a lot of critique of the ship based micro-transactions in Assassins Creed Black Flag and I'm pretty sure no one particularly liked the "Shark Card" in-game currency micro-transactions of GTA IV either.

Has micro-transactions in any full priced retail title ever not been criticized? Yet it keeps happening, so obviously it's not being criticized enough.

This is not a new discussion by any means. Doesn't mean that it isn't a discussion worth having, at every opportunity, until practises like these stop or we personally get fed up and leave the medium. I would personally prefer the former.

 

[loa]

If there is a 4 hour timer in my console game, I'm out.
That kind of shit works on mobile phones because you constantly carry them to take a quick look at the progression and don't "sit down" to play a game.
Turning the TV on and sitting down with a controller in hand is much more deliberate and the "wait for 2 week bars to fill up or pay money" kind of "gameplay" doesn't work there.

Bravely default with its bullshit village timer based expansion waiting game danced the line already and was incredibly annoying every step of the way, this is squarely in the "lolno" territory.

Progression in a single player game should be actual stuff-I-did progression and not a "real-time timer" that is about as engaging as watching paint dry.

 

[tippy2k2]

The same thoughts I have for any of these; until it actually affects my game, I don't care all that much.

You could argue that it becomes a slippery slope and if they get away with it now they'll just push it until you HAVE to buy stuff on top of your $60 game but until they actually commit that crime, I will let it go.

There are people who for some reason don't have the time or the patience to unlock t
hings the "normal" way; if they want to spend their hard earned money skipping sections of the game, this gives them the option.

Or do you mean until it is in a game you personally like?

BINGO

If it's a game I'm interested in and I see micro-transactions that adversely affect the play if not used, I will not purchase it (or if I do purchase it, it will be a bargain bin game years after it came out). If the game just has micro-transactions but they do NOT affect the game adversely (see Dead Space 3, Mass Effect 3, or many sport games) then I don't really care all that much.

 

[elvor0]

No one ever thought to think that it could be exactly like ACIV's fleet missions where you can skip the wait by helping friends online? No? We just want to jump to conclusions with the usual "blah blah fuck Triple AAA micros-transactions blah blah" ? Sounds about par for the course on these forums.

In addition to all the points above, The fleet mechanic wasn't a primary feature of the game. Mother Base is one of the main selling points and mechanics of the game, not to mention that itself has an online component, possibly bringing in pay to win into the mix. If the game was built around the IAP's then the economy stands a good chance of being imbalanced in favour of forcing you to pay up. Natrually, people are going to get jumpy when the hear stuff like this, even if it isn't yet confirmed to be IAP's.

Why would you even decry people not liking it? It's very anti-consumer. We shouldn't even have the option of them in a full priced game.

I don't think he's so much decrying people not liking it as he is decrying people jumping to conclusions. Microtransactions would be bad, but if it's like the fleet mechanic in AC4, then I don't really have an issue, it's not exactly the most engaging gameplay,but they had a similar system in Peace Walker, which I'm guessing it's going to be akin to. Neither AC4 nor Peace Walker had microtransactions.