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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - DMC5 will have non-cosmetic microtransactions.

Otter said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
When someone was being overly-negative about the game I told them to stop and even was passively accepting of the microtransactions. I have felt bad ever since. It was a rare case of me making an illogical emotional response (I know that's surprising given my name).

People need to stop being accepting of this garbage.

The minute it effects my game experience I will care but as of yet it doesn't. I actually like single player games, the more that succeed (outside of sonys stuff) the better, so if capcom can rake in more money without compromising the game experience then thats fine by me. 

I don't get the fuss, how is this effecting people who don't want to use it?

I mean Davenet was on the spot : " This isn't about you. This isn't about me. This isn't about anyone or anything other than the companies who try to find more and more ways to try an exploit people, especially the vulnerable to such predatory practices, and seeing how people are complacent to any of the previously mentioned practices to gauge how far they can go gradually. "

Knowing if it does or does not affect your gaming experience wasn't the point, it's about the way compagnies are trying to get away with bullshit pratices. The inddiference some might feel towards this issue is what these compagnies actually wants since it gives them the "ok" to go even further.

Are people already forgetting to what point we were last year ? Motherfricking SW Battlefront 2.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
Eh, as long as it's optional...

At the same time, earnings (generally money or exp, sometimes both often some other things, too) get slowed down to an extreme grind just to push gamers consumers to buy them to alleviate the grind - or like I say it, to not play the goddamn game!



Im not supporting this kind of garbage no matter how optional or non invasive it is. Its bad enough that they make you pay for cosmetics, now they want you to pay to not play the fucking game? Give me a break.



Mar1217 said:
Otter said:

The minute it effects my game experience I will care but as of yet it doesn't. I actually like single player games, the more that succeed (outside of sonys stuff) the better, so if capcom can rake in more money without compromising the game experience then thats fine by me. 

I don't get the fuss, how is this effecting people who don't want to use it?

I mean Davenet was on the spot : " This isn't about you. This isn't about me. This isn't about anyone or anything other than the companies who try to find more and more ways to try an exploit people, especially the vulnerable to such predatory practices, and seeing how people are complacent to any of the previously mentioned practices to gauge how far they can go gradually. "

Knowing if it does or does not affect your gaming experience wasn't the point, it's about the way compagnies are trying to get away with bullshit pratices. The inddiference some might feel towards this issue is what these compagnies actually wants since it gives them the "ok" to go even further.

Are people already forgetting to what point we were last year ? Motherfricking SW Battlefront 2.

That wasn't even a Star Wars game, it was a poorly disguised gambling operation.



Not a good sign. Sure, it may be "optional" but that still raises some questions. How is locking what is essentially an easy mode behind micro-transactions justified? Will the game be designed with these "optional" micro-transactions in mind?



Around the Network
Dravenet7 said:
Hiku said:

1. They already had this in DMC4:

No adjustments were made to how often enemies drop orbs.

2. Dualshockers tested how much you have to grind to level up skills in DMC5 after hearing this, and it seems about the same as usual: https://www.dualshockers.com/devil-may-cry-5-red-orbs-playing-normally/amp/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__twitter_impression=true

This is probably just an option for people who don't like leveling up the usual way, and would rather throw money at it.
Not my cup of tea, but if it really doesn't affect my gameplay then 

Alright I was jokingly making my comments at first expecting people to do the obvious and call this is out, but some of you are legitimately okay-ing this and that's no good

1.Let's not do that. It was DMC 4: SE that had loot-boxes. Not DMC 4, which launched, like, 6 years earlier. 4SE launched during a time-frame where micro-transactions started coming out and people were still confused about its sole reasoning for implementation in full priced games (greed). When Capcom launched DMC 4SE, many people passed on it and they made obviously no pronouncements of the micro-transactions, which is why barely anyone even noticed. I had bought DMC 4 on PC only for this to come out 2 weeks later and skipped it, so I know I never heard about them until now. I was actually thinking of buying it before DMC5 before all this news came out. Saving a ton of money now.

2. (And this is much more important) If you want to make the game easier for yourself, there's something that really gives player's choice called:

Easy - Normal - Hard - Someone Must Die-etc-etc-etc

If people want to go easy way OUT, they should play the easy mode going IN. 

In Bayonetta 1&2 they literally give you an item the let's you obtain more halos/orbs. This isn't about giving players options it's about taking players' money.

If it doesn't affect you, great. If micro-transactions don't affect you, great. If loot-boxes don't affect you, great. If Shadow of War's former practices didn't affect you, great. If SW: BF II's former system didn't affect you, great. If any predatory practice didn't affect you, terrific. 

This isn't about you. This isn't about me. This isn't about anyone or anything other than the companies who try to find more and more ways to try an exploit people, especially the vulnerable to such predatory practices, and seeing how people are complacent to any of the previously mentioned practices to gauge how far they can go gradually

 

EDIT: I meant micro-transactions, not loot-boxes, at #1

I know this was implemented in the Special Edition of DMC4. My point was that the implementation of these micro transactions didn't seem to affect the game's design. Which is what a lot of people seem to be mainly concerned about when it comes to these things. That's why I addressed it.
And DMC4: SE is just one of many examples of this. The Tales series have had these things for at least since 2010 to my knowledge, in Tales of Graces F (Japanese release date).
It continued in 2012's Tales of Xillia:



And it's in 2016's Tales of Berseria. Etc.

At no point have I experienced that they adjusted the grind in the game to encourage you to open your wallet compared to previous entries dating back to PS2 and PS1.
I just want to make that clear because you brought up games like Battlefront 2, where this clearly wasn't the case. Grinding 40 hours to unlock a character like Vader was not the norm that people were used to in previous entries of the series, which is one of the main reasons people got so pissed off about that game. That's a case where numbers in the game have been tweeked specifically because of the implementation of micro-transactions. That's probably not what's going on here. And it's important to at least make that distinction first.

Now, I see that to you it doesn't matter whether or not these things change anything in the game. You're concerned about people getting exploited, and in particular people who are especially prone to these kind of things.
However, the extent at which a game is designed to encourage you to spend money is directly correlated to both of these things. And that matters. I don't think anyone would be concerned if this was about a grand total of 1 cent. If we had to boycott every game or console where there's a business decision or practice  that could potentially exploit or be otherwise harmful to some consumers, even when it's not intentionally trying to do this, the list of games/consoles would make for an incredibly long discussion.

My point of view is that when a game is designed to induce emotions associated with the rush of gambling, or is intentionally designed to frustrate the player with slow progression to make them open up their wallet, that's when I don't want to give them my money.
I cannot however be too concerned with what people throw their money at when they're being unreasonably lazy, or simply have more dispensable income than they do free time.
Just like I can't say "I won't buy any game that includes alcohol because there are recovering alcoholics who may be playing". There are warning labels on games for these things that people chose to ignore. And there are usually "in game purchase" labels to be found for games that offer them.
If you have a specific problem with something, whether it is the sight of guns due to your PTSD, or you can't stop yourself from spending money on game progression, then I suggest you read all the relevant labels before you buy a game, and stay away from it if you think it could be a problem.

However, with DMC5, if it's anything like DMC4, the amount of money Capcom stand to gain from a single player with these type of microtransactions seem pretty miniscule.
Chasing Messi and Ronaldo in card packs in FIFA can set you back thousands of dollars.
While a pack of 300,000 red orbs in DMC4 cost you $2.
And 200,000 Proud Souls cost $3.

From what I gather, you needed just under 300 000 Proud Souls and over 1 million Red Orbs to max out and buy everything in DMC4.
That's about $12 bucks. And that's in a worst case scenario for the rare player that wants to max out everything by paying for it, and not pick up a single orb in the game.

And if there are such players, and at the same time don't have the disposable income to fund their behavior, then I'm sure natural selection will take care of them sooner or later.
I have sympathy for the induced gambling addictions in games like FIFA. Little to no sympathy for someone who doesn't want to level up in a game like DMC and spend 12 bucks they don't have.

Should there be free items/orbs/mode for these players instead? There have been items that increase drop rates in various games for decades, long before microtransactions were even possible. And they have also deliberately been kept out of many of those games at the time. Mainly because people tend to make use of all the tools they have available, which can lead to a diminished experience for those who didn't need those enhancements. And game developers and publishers are still at the mercy of the satisfaction of their customers, and to some extent the opinions of reviewers, etc.
Now, Capcom are letting people bypass their judgement to not offer us free orbs, if you pay them money. That is indeed scummy in some ways.

I say 'some ways' because it can potentially be helpful to some in a proper way without negatively impacting their experience, or causing them problems financially.
And at the same time, it's one way they can make a bit of extra revenue on a game that may very well not sell as much as they would need it to sell, and a game that potentially shouldn't have retailed for as little as $60 to begin with due to how much it cost to develop. But I digress.

These are some of the reasons why it matters to me whether or not the microtransactions affect the gameplay in a negative way or not, and just how much they're able to squeeze out of someone in a worst case scenario.

Last edited by Hiku - on 26 September 2018

As long as it's optional and not in your face within the game. If there's a separate menue at start up screen that takes you too extras that's fine. The ones I hate are like destiny where it's all over your game



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

Hiku said:

I know this was implemented in the Special Edition of DMC4. My point was that the implementation of these micro transactions didn't seem to affect the game's design. Which is what a lot of people seem to be mainly concerned about when it comes to these things. That's why I addressed it.
And DMC4: SE is just one of many examples of this. The Tales series have had these things for at least since 2010 to my knowledge, in Tales of Graces F (Japanese release date).
It continued in 2012's Tales of Xillia:



And it's in 2016's Tales of Berseria. Etc.

At no point have I experienced that they adjusted the grind in the game to encourage you to open your wallet compared to previous entries dating back to PS2 and PS1.
I just want to make that clear because you brought up games like Battlefront 2, where this clearly wasn't the case. Grinding 40 hours to unlock a character like Vader was not the norm that people were used to in previous entries of the series, which is one of the main reasons people got so pissed off about that game. That's a case where numbers in the game have been tweeked specifically because of the implementation of micro-transactions. That's probably not what's going on here. And it's important to at least make that distinction first.

Now, I see that to you it doesn't matter whether or not these things change anything in the game. You're concerned about people getting exploited, and in particular people who are especially prone to these kind of things.
However, the extent at which a game is designed to encourage you to spend money is directly correlated to both of these things. And that matters. I don't think anyone would be concerned if this was about a grand total of 1 cent. If we had to boycott every game or console where there's a business decision or practice  that could potentially exploit or be otherwise harmful to some consumers, even when it's not intentionally trying to do this, the list of games/consoles would make for an incredibly long discussion.

My point of view is that when a game is designed to induce emotions associated with the rush of gambling, or is intentionally designed to frustrate the player with slow progression to make them open up their wallet, that's when I don't want to give them my money.
I cannot however be too concerned with what people throw their money at when they're being unreasonably lazy, or simply have more dispensable income than they do free time.
Just like I can't say "I won't buy any game that includes alcohol because there are recovering alcoholics who may be playing". There are warning labels on games for these things that people chose to ignore. And there are usually "in game purchase" labels to be found for games that offer them.
If you have a specific problem with something, whether it is the sight of guns due to your PTSD, or you can't stop yourself from spending money on game progression, then I suggest you read all the relevant labels before you buy a game, and stay away from it if you think it could be a problem.

However, with DMC5, if it's anything like DMC4, the amount of money Capcom stand to gain from a single player with these type of microtransactions seem pretty miniscule.
Chasing Messi and Ronaldo in card packs in FIFA can set you back thousands of dollars.
While a pack of 300,000 red orbs in DMC4 cost you $2.
And 200,000 Proud Souls cost $3.

From what I gather, you needed just under 300 000 Proud Souls and over 1 million Red Orbs to max out and buy everything in DMC4.
That's about $12 bucks. And that's in a worst case scenario for the rare player that wants to max out everything by paying for it, and not pick up a single orb in the game.

And if there are such players, and at the same time don't have the disposable income to fund their behavior, then I'm sure natural selection will take care of them sooner or later.
I have sympathy for the induced gambling addictions in games like FIFA. Little to no sympathy for someone who doesn't want to level up in a game like DMC and spend 12 bucks they don't have.

Should there be free items/orbs/mode for these players instead? There have been items that increase drop rates in various games for decades, long before micro-transactions were even possible. And they have also deliberately been kept out of many of those games at the time. Mainly because people tend to make use of all the tools they have available, which can lead to a diminished experience for those who didn't need those enhancements. And game developers and publishers are still at the mercy of the satisfaction of their customers, and to some extent the opinions of reviewers, etc.
Now, Capcom are letting people bypass their judgement to not offer us free orbs, if you pay them money. That is indeed scummy in some ways.

I say 'some ways' because it can potentially be helpful to some in a proper way without negatively impacting their experience, or causing them problems financially.
And at the same time, it's one way they can make a bit of extra revenue on a game that may very well not sell as much as they would need it to sell, and a game that potentially shouldn't have retailed for as little as $60 to begin with due to how much it cost to develop. But I digress.

These are some of the reasons why it matters to me whether or not the microtransactions affect the gameplay in a negative way or not, and just how much they're able to squeeze out of someone in a worst case scenario.

Wish I saw this sooner. You actually have a very excellent rebuttal, which is refreshing from other arguments I've seen for other things lately. I hate that I'm saying that though, because of this is about micro-transactions.

For the Tales of series, I never knew about that because I actually never bought a game in the series. I was actually thinking about buying Beseria before this. I'll get to this and some others toward the end.

You do have a point. Lootboxes isn't the same as micro-transactions. That was part of the reason I edited my previous post, because admittedly I was conflating them. It is important to make that distinction and doing otherwise is disingenuous to any real discussion. I brought them up as an end result problem that ended having needing to be cleared up. I wanted to point out that micro-transactions were a foundation of such practices, and that's why it spiraled to such an extent. I didn't write it in a way that didn't indicated that properly.

In terms of boycotting every game that comes up with bad practices: I am of the standpoint that if you personally feel that there is a bad practice in any game or gaming product. Yes, you absolutely should boycott it. Aside from that, as long as you are not forgiving one game for a practice and not another game for a same practice its fine generally to be ok with a practice others claim to be anti-consumer, so long as (like you're doing) are willing a good explanation as to why because at times, its all about perception.  I'm not saying that I'm not trying to change your mind, because I am. I think it is important everyone challenges each other's perceptions without really attacking or disparaging each other for said perception. So if you feel the same way at the end of this, with the way you presented your argument, I genuinely couldn't be close to upset. [I think its important to boycott every practice we see as problematic as we are at a standpoint with the industry where these companies have expectations that they make bigger profits at the expense of gamers and employees.] <- I don't want to go too far into this part because I feel this is big enough to be a topic itself and slightly deviates from our discussion, but feel more than free to respond to this.

Now, while I do understand your disdain/apathy for people willing to pay because they are simply too lazy to play through the game properly, I also feel this is the only part of your argument I think is bad. There was a time I agreed to this, but at the same time has proven that these companies don't care whether or not you're just lazy and want to make the game easier. Children that come into gaming and believe this to be normal, are very easy targets. People with some type of spending addictions may feel the need to get this. For people with addictions and the like, labels wouldn't really do anything to prevent the from buying a game or product. It may in fact, encourage them instead as it may be a means to sate an addiction. I feel your PTSD comparison isn't appropriate for that reason because trauma doesn't normally entice people to look for something that brings their trauma to them. Addictions, on the other hand, absolutely do. 

Now obviously this may not be the case in DMC 5, and yes the distinction needs to be said that things, such as gambling addictions, will not be in play. It will not be as bad as FIFA and the like, true enough. Will it be the same as DMC 4 SE? I don't think so. For the record, I can't really discuss the value of the micro-transactions because I simply can't find a video or record online about the price of orbs/moves you get at either the statue or I think at the end of the level. Its been a while since I played it, and I don't feel like downloading the game again to find out. All I could find was that the base DMC 4(the one I own) values for Nero and Dante, which came out to 51900 red orbs and 65700 proud orbs. Obviously something is very wrong with these numbers so I'm not bringing it into account, so we'll go with that everything cost $12. To me, that still does not matter. Going to a point you made earlier, yes, I would find even a penny problematic.

Granted, Both in the example of DMC 4 SE and the penny its a fixed price, making it better than most common cases. However, there was no announcements of micro-transactions for DMC 4SE like there was in DMC 5 (if there was feel free to site it. I genuinely don't think there was). Why? I think the reason is a given as now gamers are more aware so they know they can't just slip it in again. However, now they have the excuse that it was in DMC 4SE, a game, where again, they never made an announcement of. My issue here is that, they have revealed that they are willing to creep this more and more into the game. For this reason I think it will become progressively worse and normalized.

*Also we know we play as three dedicated characters of in this game. It is also suspected that the game will have multiplayer. I believe this, if true, is what Capcom's counting on to pressure people to pay money in order to catch up to others. However, that is merely conjecture I thought up when typing this.*

Now I also acknowledge the part of the argument where you note what impacts experience vs financial returns. I don't necessarily, agree but it certainly an interesting way to look at it that I think is worth looking into. I am firmly against the $60 thing, but I believe that is closer to the argument in my earlier bracket that slightly deviates from what goes into this argument. Also, before this, DMC 5 would have sold very well. I'm almost confident it would have been the best selling game in the series to date by some margin. Consumers had a lot of goodwill for Capcom recently, partially because of this game, but also because of Megaman and Monster Hunter World.

Now as for the Tales of games and other games I'm just finding out about such as the Bravely series. Yes they had micro-transactions. No, I never played them, but would go against it the same way as DMC 5? Yes and the reason is because I feel that I personally was not vocal when bad practices weren't made for games/platforms I didn't care too much about, but the minute it became a problem for what I did like, it was already too late. We've also seen this pushback recently against bad practices that ended up being effective. I just don't think personal complacency is something I want to result in negative consequences again. 

Now again, for you I honestly respect your decision. A lot more so than the people who complain yet buy it or especially those that complain and wait for a sale, because they are being complicit, self-serving, holier than thou and yet hypocritically supporting something they don't believe in. At the very least I acknowledge that you are considering micro-transactions from all angles and trying to establish a line where it doesn't negatively impact consumers whilst not hurting the company. Sorry for the very long and delayed response.



Mar1217 said:
Otter said:

The minute it effects my game experience I will care but as of yet it doesn't. I actually like single player games, the more that succeed (outside of sonys stuff) the better, so if capcom can rake in more money without compromising the game experience then thats fine by me. 

I don't get the fuss, how is this effecting people who don't want to use it?

I mean Davenet was on the spot : " This isn't about you. This isn't about me. This isn't about anyone or anything other than the companies who try to find more and more ways to try an exploit people, especially the vulnerable to such predatory practices, and seeing how people are complacent to any of the previously mentioned practices to gauge how far they can go gradually. "

Knowing if it does or does not affect your gaming experience wasn't the point, it's about the way compagnies are trying to get away with bullshit pratices. The inddiference some might feel towards this issue is what these compagnies actually wants since it gives them the "ok" to go even further.

Are people already forgetting to what point we were last year ? Motherfricking SW Battlefront 2.

Loot boxes were a different beast and actually involve gambling and it was clear from everyones complaints that the game design was built around encouraging it with super steep xp requirements.

Its not about me, for sure. I think some people will actually prefer to pay to skip elements of grinding and streamline their experience and see everything that is to be experience, no different from cosmetic purchases which can otherwise be unlocked in-game but people want to have right away. The minute that in-game purchases seem exploitive I will condemn them and often have, including day one DLC. But the mere existence of microtransactions does not make a crime in my opinion. 



I'll buy it regardless. Looks to be the best game to release in 2019 and beyond. Microtransactions don't bother me when the game itself is a masterpiece and they don't get in the way.