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

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

EDIT: nevermind (cont'd below).

Last edited by KManX89 - on 25 February 2018

Around the Network
Ultr said:

Wait just like pokemon? but for a fraction of the price? outrageous!!

 

Also I thought nobody is gonna buy the game anyway. So its not like its gonna affect anyone ^^

 

Except, as I just pointed out earlier, unlike Konami, Pokemon has a perfectly valid reason for only allowing 1 save slot: so you can't farm unlimited one-time capture Pokemon and trade them to yourself via a third party. Ergo, it's a way to stop cheaters from having 6 lv 100 Mewtwos on their squad.

What's Konami's excuse for locking additional saves behind a paywall? Oh, right, greed. 

Xxain said:
Shadow1980 said:

Didn't say it could happen. It'll probably never happen. But a guy can hope, can't he?

And I can very much be of the opinion that Konami doesn't deserve to exist merely because they might be providing profits for their shareholders. They have a lot of history as a once-respected publisher that put out many great games. Because copyright terms exist for many decades, Konami can sit on their IPs and milk them for pachinko machine branding and the occasional shoddy spin-off video game until most of us are either old or dead. As someone who grew up playing Konami games back when the Konami name meant something, you're goddamn right I think that they either no longer deserve to exist as a company, or at minimum need some serious changes in leadership that will move them back towards being a respected game publisher. I don't simply have to sit back and resign myself with a heavy sigh and a subdued "Oh, well" because "it's not my company."

Tell me, do you ever object to anything a company does, or do you just go through life with a passive "Oh, well" attitude because "It's not my company, so I have no right to complain about anything they do ever"?

This is such a stupid post. It reeks of call to emotion and typical of call to emotion, logic takes a backseat. Konami is not a video games company. They are a entertainment business. They partake in many fields of entertainment - Toys, cards, gambling, Anime fitness ext. You only know Konami as a video games company because you are a gamer. There are people who only know Konami because they own Yu-Gi-Oh. What you are telling us is Konami should cease to exist as a company because they are not leveraging video games IP's in a way that suitable to your taste? They guys who enjoy MGS3 Pachinko should not matter, the millions of Yu-Gi-Oh fans dont matter. Do I need to go on? Konami can sit on their IP's for as long as they choose BECAUSE THEIR MONEY MADE THEM, THEY OWN THEM. If you bought a ferrari and you decide that you only want drive it once per year that is YOUR choice because YOU Own it. Do you think someone should be entitled to drive your car because they decided you weren't driving it enough? Do you respect/understand ownership laws. "Hey! I noticed you didn't come how for 3 weeks, sooo I made myself comfortable," said your neighbor.

Konami is not obligated to stay a video game/publisher. Konami is a arcade developer and their biggest hits dont transfer well as console games which is why they favor mobile and gambling; they can take full advantage of their arcade roots. MGS and PES are they only super successful console games Konami has. Every installment of castlevania sold less and less. Silent Hil peaked at 2 then downhill, Suikoden was never big. Maybe if gamers dropped the attitude that every game has to be 100 hours and a adopt a replay to master attitude instead maybe we wouldn't have lost our arcade style games from developers like SEGA and Konami?  They announced last year they would have more switch revivals. Gamers have develop a toxic level of entitlement though. 

Ljink96 said:

It's really sad too. Kojima was what was left of Konami and they killed him off. Igarashi couldn't put up with Konami anymore either. The dudes that made Konami are leaving, and soon they won't be known for videogames anymore. And if they do videogames, it'll be mobile.

And if it wasn't for us "entitled AAA gamers", Konami wouldn't be ALIVE today. They're only still around to sit on those IPs and slap em on pachinkos for cheap short-term profit because we GAVE them our money. Ergo, we have every right to voice our displeasure with their shady business practices. If game publishers want good PR, then they have to take care of the people who take care of THEM, that's how the community works and it's always been that way, but what do I know? They stopped caring about us gamers years ago, and it shows with them shoehorning their beloved franchises into pachinkos, cancelling highly-anticipated games (Silent Hills), selling mobile games for $50 (SBR) and selling asset flips for $40 (MGS) and locking every basic feature imaginable behind an exorbitant paywall to boot.

Last edited by KManX89 - on 25 February 2018

KManX89 said:
Ultr said:

Wait just like pokemon? but for a fraction of the price? outrageous!!

 

Also I thought nobody is gonna buy the game anyway. So its not like its gonna affect anyone ^^

 

Except, as I just pointed out earlier, unlike Konami, Pokemon has a perfectly valid reason for only allowing 1 save slot: so you can't farm unlimited one-time capture Pokemon and trade them to yourself via a third party. Ergo, it's a way to stop cheaters from having 6 lv 100 Mewtwos on their squad.

What's Konami's excuse for locking additional saves behind a paywall? Oh, right, greed. 

Xxain said:

This is such a stupid post. It reeks of call to emotion and typical of call to emotion, logic takes a backseat. Konami is not a video games company. They are a entertainment business. They partake in many fields of entertainment - Toys, cards, gambling, Anime fitness ext. You only know Konami as a video games company because you are a gamer. There are people who only know Konami because they own Yu-Gi-Oh. What you are telling us is Konami should cease to exist as a company because they are not leveraging video games IP's in a way that suitable to your taste? They guys who enjoy MGS3 Pachinko should not matter, the millions of Yu-Gi-Oh fans dont matter. Do I need to go on? Konami can sit on their IP's for as long as they choose BECAUSE THEIR MONEY MADE THEM, THEY OWN THEM. If you bought a ferrari and you decide that you only want drive it once per year that is YOUR choice because YOU Own it. Do you think someone should be entitled to drive your car because they decided you weren't driving it enough? Do you respect/understand ownership laws. "Hey! I noticed you didn't come how for 3 weeks, sooo I made myself comfortable," said your neighbor.

Konami is not obligated to stay a video game/publisher. Konami is a arcade developer and their biggest hits dont transfer well as console games which is why they favor mobile and gambling; they can take full advantage of their arcade roots. MGS and PES are they only super successful console games Konami has. Every installment of castlevania sold less and less. Silent Hil peaked at 2 then downhill, Suikoden was never big. Maybe if gamers dropped the attitude that every game has to be 100 hours and a adopt a replay to master attitude instead maybe we wouldn't have lost our arcade style games from developers like SEGA and Konami?  They announced last year they would have more switch revivals. Gamers have develop a toxic level of entitlement though. 

And if it wasn't for us "entitled AAA gamers", Konami wouldn't be ALIVE today. They're only still around to sit on those IPs and slap em on pachinkos for cheap short-term profit because we GAVE them our money. Ergo, we have every right to voice our displeasure with their shady business practices. If game publishers want good PR, then they have to take care of the people who take care of THEM, that's how the community works and it's always been that way, but what do I know? They stopped caring about us gamers years ago, and it shows with them shoehorning their beloved franchises into pachinkos, cancelling highly-anticipated games (Silent Hills), selling mobile games for $50 (SBR) and selling asset flips for $40 (MGS) and locking every basic feature imaginable behind an exorbitant paywall to boot.

You gave them YOUR money because THEY made a product  you WANTED. They dont owe you anything after that handshake and vice versa. Imagine SE forwarding a email to all its player base saying, "Remember when made FF7 on PS1 that you bought? Weeeell FF14 (old version) isnt doing so well so we think that because we gave you that wonderful experience all those years ago you should support ff14 with a subscription! #dontcareifyoudontplayjustbuy.

     Lets flip the script with Konami! They are responsible for some of the most beloved IP's that you played! You should be obligated to support everything they do to say thank you for them enriching your life. Does that sound stupid? A relationship between a business and its customer is a 2 way street, not one way: They make something good they get your money. They get your money when they make something good. The end.



LOL did someone just say people are being entitled for wanting the extra saves? ROFL

MG Survive is structured differently to Pokemon the latter is structured to prevent mass farming of legendarys and rares hence why it's always been one save it's there for a competitive reason the former is an online game in structure similar to what many other games are like MH so the's no real reason to have only one save to begin with especially when MHW can give 3.



So the game cost 40 bucks and they charge 10 bucks for extra save slot. My question is do you actually need that extra save slot. At 40 bones are you getting the full experience of a fun game. Personally I would say 30 bucks and 10 dollar save if the game is full and fun actually would not be a bad ideal.

At the budget price and persistent online world, I guess if they are not doing loot boxes or something like that I guess they need to make that extra cash somewhere. Not sure if this is really a big deal.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
So the game cost 40 bucks and they charge 10 bucks for extra save slot. My question is do you actually need that extra save slot. At 40 bones are you getting the full experience of a fun game. Personally I would say 30 bucks and 10 dollar save if the game is full and fun actually would not be a bad ideal.

At the budget price and persistent online world, I guess if they are not doing loot boxes or something like that I guess they need to make that extra cash somewhere. Not sure if this is really a big deal.

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?



KManX89 said:
Machiavellian said:
So the game cost 40 bucks and they charge 10 bucks for extra save slot. My question is do you actually need that extra save slot. At 40 bones are you getting the full experience of a fun game. Personally I would say 30 bucks and 10 dollar save if the game is full and fun actually would not be a bad ideal.

At the budget price and persistent online world, I guess if they are not doing loot boxes or something like that I guess they need to make that extra cash somewhere. Not sure if this is really a big deal.

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.



KManX89 said:
Ultr said:

Wait just like pokemon? but for a fraction of the price? outrageous!!

 

Also I thought nobody is gonna buy the game anyway. So its not like its gonna affect anyone ^^

 

Except, as I just pointed out earlier, unlike Konami, Pokemon has a perfectly valid reason for only allowing 1 save slot: so you can't farm unlimited one-time capture Pokemon and trade them to yourself via a third party. Ergo, it's a way to stop cheaters from having 6 lv 100 Mewtwos on their squad.

What's Konami's excuse for locking additional saves behind a paywall? Oh, right, greed.

What exactely prevents them from giving you a second save file so you can just start the game over instead of having to delete your old file?

I mean they can prevent you from cheating like you said by just not allowing to save on another file or am I not thinking enough?

You should still be able to start a new game with a new savefile and only be able to save on that one.

So if my thoughts are right then this is a laughable excuse.

Correct me if I am wrong...



Ultr said:
KManX89 said:

 

Except, as I just pointed out earlier, unlike Konami, Pokemon has a perfectly valid reason for only allowing 1 save slot: so you can't farm unlimited one-time capture Pokemon and trade them to yourself via a third party. Ergo, it's a way to stop cheaters from having 6 lv 100 Mewtwos on their squad.

What's Konami's excuse for locking additional saves behind a paywall? Oh, right, greed.

What exactely prevents them from giving you a second save file so you can just start the game over instead of having to delete your old file?

I mean they can prevent you from cheating like you said by just not allowing to save on another file or am I not thinking enough?

You should still be able to start a new game with a new savefile and only be able to save on that one.

So if my thoughts are right then this is a laughable excuse.

Correct me if I am wrong...

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.



Machiavellian said:                                

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.

No offence dude but he has a point people used your argument back when microtransactions and such were new now the industry is infested by them, I've been gaming since the 80s so your strong survive argument has no real context here because for example during our time things like costumes and such were extras already in the game to unlock through playing. The's making money but then the is charging for basics, these companies have things like costume packs and all that before launch to charge for yet back in the days when you and me first started these costumes were free in the game.

This isn't evolution mate this is down right trying their luck, you say people should vote with their wallets right well people only found out when they already bought the game the was no such indication before hand the company has already made their money by now. Like him or not Jim Sterling has a point about the industry.