By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Metal Gear Survive charging $10 for additional character saves

That's really dumb of Konami to do that.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
KManX89 said:

LOL, companies charging for basic features is not really a big deal?!?!?!?! Do you hear yourself? And do you not see the terrible precedent this sets for the EAs, Bunglevisions, Ubisofts, WBs, etc.'s of the world? Attitudes like this are why greedy publishers get away with imposing predatory practices on the rest of us. Every time we've given them an inch, they've always gone the extra mile, continually pushing the envelop for what they can get away with. First, it was cosmetics being sold as DLC (Skyrim horse armor), then it was year-round multiplayer DLC (CoD), then it was charging for content on the damn disc, then it was VOICE PACKS (CoD once again), then it was DLC from a near-decade old remaster that could only be bought with a less popular game for $80 being sold to us with a price hike (Modern Warfare Remaster), and now, we have predatory loot boxes and other shady monetization schemes being thrown at us.  What next? They'll start charging you to SAVE your game? Under no circumstances should basic features be cordoned off and locked behind a paywall.

And it's literally a MGSV mod/asset flip being sold to you for $40 with basic features that should be given to you for free in any game being paywalled. I guarantee you it didn't cost that much to make, there is literally 0 justification for this. Like I said, MHW, a full-priced AAA game gives you 3 character slots, storage space to contain every item in the game and then some and over 1,000 loadouts and it doesn't charge a penny for them. 

If a full-priced AAA game with real effort, time and dedication put into it can do that, why can't Konami with a half-assed asset flip of a game?

Who said its a basic feature.  This is your opinion.  If the game is charged a budget price, and they have a persistent online world which does cost money to maintain, then it's not your typical single player game.  Its your opinion that the game is a MGSV mod/asset flip but you really have no clue how much development, cost and resources has gone into the production of the game.  You make an assumption without ever playing the game and give it off as fact.  My opinion is based on if the game meets the fun requirement and is a good game at its 40 dollar price.

Here is my point.  Game companies can and will try many different things to earn that little extra cash for games, we as consumers vote with our dollars.  If the game doesn't meet the required fun for the price and features, then it will fail and then game company will go and either do something better, refine the price to feature point or go under.  I do not get wound up over this stuff probably because I have played games since pong.  Everything is an evolution and only the strong survive.

Weapon loadouts and save slots ARE a basic feature in any online MP/SP game, fact, not opinion. If it weren't a basic feature, companies wouldn't be putting them in games for decades for free. LOL, you just lost all credibility when you said save slots aren't a basic feature. Next, I expect you to say guns aren't a basic feature in any shooter. Also, way to squirm around the fact that the game in no way NEEDS to be always online and that's entirely the reason why they CHOSE to limit save and weapon slots and charge a ridiculous price for them. Attitudes like yours are the reason why they'll be charging us a dollar entry fee for every multiplayer match in a few years time. 

It's also not an opinion that this game is an asset flip/mod of MGSV. Literally all they did was shift around assets from TPP, how in God's name is that NOT an asset flip/mod? 



Ultr said:
Wyrdness said:

You transfer Pokemon in the games through the trading feature, each save file generates 1 of each of the game's Legendarys and Rares so having two files would have people using the second to farm Legendarys and Rares through the trading system. This would lead to people having unbeatable teams made up entirely of Pokémon you're only meant to have one of and would break competitive play for many players.

It's not about where you save it's about the one of a kind Pokémon each playthrough would generate.

Well you can just buy another pokemon game to do that already no?

You'd need another game and platform so to do that in Sun/Moon you'd need another copy of the exact game and another 3DS which would cost you around 160-200 quid or so which not many people would spend just to cheat in competitive play.



This should really impact the hundreds of people who were stupid enough to buy this trash.

On top of the fact that the game is utter rubbish, this extra shit really will effect their enjoyment of it.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Ka-pi96 said:
KManX89 said:

You could still get them all in one game save via farming, you'd just need a friend to do it at no cost to him/her (or literally to yourself if you happen to have both editions and another console lying around). Let's say the Red/Blue edition(s), you could have 6 lv100 Mewtwos on your team when it's all said and done. You'd just have to trade the Mewtwo from each of the save files back and forth and voila! Oh yes, because this wouldn't cheapen the game at all. 

And no, I wouldn't be okay with only one character save full stop in MGS, either. There's a world of difference between only allowing 1 save (or having to pay for additional saves) in a game that allows you to have multiple unique characters and only allowing 1 save to prevent obvious cheating/exploiting in the case of the Pokemon example.

You'd still require a second console and copy of the game, regardless of whether they're yours or a friends. You still do it that way now, trading back and forth to get 6 Mewtwos. You have to pay extra to do that now and if the game allowed multiple saves then you'd still need to pay extra in order to do that. There's literally no difference. You're just being hypocritical by criticising Konami for it but not GameFreak.

And by the way, I'm not ok with only having one save file in Pokemon full stop. I get attached to my Pokemon and don't want to delete them all just to play through the game again. And I have no interest whatsoever in the multiplayer and they usually have very little end game content, so the only option is to delete my perfectly good save file and all of my Pokemon just to enjoy the game again which is quite frankly ridiculous. And even if I did like the multiplayer, trading back and forth to acquire multiple unique legendaries is as I mentioned still perfectly possible, and by the way is neither an exploit nor a cheat. As far as I'm aware and kind of competitive Pokemon multiplayer usually bans legendaries anyway, as well as having rules concerning having duplicates of Pokemon too, so you wouldn't even gain anything from replaying the game to get multiple legendaries.

Oh and actually, let's not forget that Pokemon games (with the exception of gen 3) always have options to transfer your Pokemon from an old gen to the new games, so if you do that you'll be picking up multiple copies of "unique" legendary Pokemon anyway, 1 from your old game and another from your new game. So the whole "people would "exploit" multiple saves to trade themselves multiple versions of one off Pokemon" argument really doesn't hold any weight whatsoever.

Well, since pokemon bank it has been insanely easy to make a new save. Just transfer all your pokemon to the bank super quick and create a new game. I also have been annoyed by no multiple saves. I'm not a huge end game pokemon guy. I do some breeding/iv/ect stuff and max out maybe a dozen new pokemon each gen, but then I get bored and want to replay the game with new pokemon or a max iv bred pokemon or something.

Yet it was a pain in the ass to do it. Had to trade to a trusted friend or oneself on a second console and trade back. With bank it made it super easy. Though in both cases, your old game is gone. So to go back to end game stuff I need to beat the entire game again.

THis should all be remedied on the switch. Seeing as games ask you (unless you turned it off) what user is playing the game, you should be able to create multiple users on your switch and thus even if the game only has one save you can still technically have multiple pokemon saves on your system. Thus you can have your 100% complete end game/farming/ect save and you can have other saves for fun nuzlokes, wonderlockes, ect.



Around the Network
Dgc1808 said:

I'm not bothered by this at all.

If the game had only one save file and you had to completely delete your save to start over, no other option, people would probably be less angry (Pokemon, Breath of the Wild). However, that just doesn't make sense to me.

EDIT: Also, did one of the past Metal Gear Online games also require you to pay for additional saves?

No other option?  You can play Breath of the Wild on as many accounts as your heart desires to create with a different save file on each.  You don't have to buy extra save slots, and certainly not "have to buy the entire game over again" as you imply.



It's Konami. What did you expect?

The people who bought the game were dumb to expect anything different.



well i have seen it in free to play games, not that I was going to buy this game but I will look to avoid anything from Konami period. At best for me, they will be some of the used games in the bargain bin buy, well that is if the servers are working to actually play the game.

I remember the days of video games, and not game services. That was a nice time and didnt even know it then.



 

Wyrdness said:
Ultr said:

Well you can just buy another pokemon game to do that already no?

You'd need another game and platform so to do that in Sun/Moon you'd need another copy of the exact game and another 3DS which would cost you around 160-200 quid or so which not many people would spend just to cheat in competitive play.

But its possible and another guy in the thread just pointed to the way you can use a pokemon bank or something to do that. So they are just trying to bank in on the additional pokemon game sales.
Its okay that they do that its just the hypocrisy has to be pointed out.



Ka-pi96 said:
irstupid said:

Well, since pokemon bank it has been insanely easy to make a new save. Just transfer all your pokemon to the bank super quick and create a new game. I also have been annoyed by no multiple saves. I'm not a huge end game pokemon guy. I do some breeding/iv/ect stuff and max out maybe a dozen new pokemon each gen, but then I get bored and want to replay the game with new pokemon or a max iv bred pokemon or something.

Yet it was a pain in the ass to do it. Had to trade to a trusted friend or oneself on a second console and trade back. With bank it made it super easy. Though in both cases, your old game is gone. So to go back to end game stuff I need to beat the entire game again.

THis should all be remedied on the switch. Seeing as games ask you (unless you turned it off) what user is playing the game, you should be able to create multiple users on your switch and thus even if the game only has one save you can still technically have multiple pokemon saves on your system. Thus you can have your 100% complete end game/farming/ect save and you can have other saves for fun nuzlokes, wonderlockes, ect.

Don't you have to pay for Pokemon bank though? So you still have to pay extra to do something that's available as standard in pretty much every other game.

Pokémon bank is $5.00 a year.

I would consider that to be a bargain for all that it does.

1. It's a cloud save that keeps your pokemon forever. Even when subscription runs out, when you repay the pokemon are all there still. Trust me, this happened to me.

2. It bridges gaps between a ton of generations. Pokémon bank has allowed gamers to bring their pokemon from the Gameboy all the way to the 3DS. And think of future. not all games work great between another. Lets say your playing pokemon black and then the new pokemon stars comes out or something on switch. It might not be easy to transfer pokemon between the two. But its easy to pop them into bank and get them from there. It's agreat middle ground between different systems.

3. Convenience/sorting. There are 700+ pokemon. I don't think fans of the series like transfering pokemon from each generation forward each time. That is a pain. Nice to just keep all the pokemon you have in one spot and if you ever do want them pop them over into the game.

So will I forgo 1 trip a year to McDonalds for the super convenience of pokemon bank? Yes I will.