Oh Dear, Middle-earth: Shadow of War Has Loot Boxes and Microtansactions

A definite no buy from me, I don't do microtransactions and I can't be bothered with the grind it takes to do as it will be designed to encourage loot purchases. I wouldn't even play this if it were in a cheap sale or lent to me for free. my gaming time is to precious to me. And it's not like there's a drought for quality games out there.

I'll stick to the 'wait and see' approach as well.

Microtransactions in a full price game are disgusting. Hope no-one supports this drivel.

The only acceptable lootbox are skin based, tbh. Single player lootboxes need to walk to the other side of the desert without water.

This is a disheartening development, one that has convinced me to not buy the game. I'm getting more miserable as I get older, but I feel justified in saying that I don't want microtransactions in my single player games, one that I potentially paid £50/60 for. It reeks of "wow, our last game was a surprise success, now we know the sequels will sell well, so let's milk these suckers for every penny". I don't care that currency to open loot boxes can be accrued over time, I don't care if it won't have a huge effect on gameplay, I'm sick of having to consider whether microtransactions will ruin my experience. It's such a shame...

The sad part about this is that you just know that many people will buy these ridiculous loot boxes, make the publisher/developer loads of money and give them a reason to do it again in their other games.

Happy to be skipping this one then. Nemesis system aside I thought the original was pretty boring. Don't know why it's so liked.

@get2sammyb I'd rather neither obviously, but if I had to choose I would absolutely rather they raised the RRP. That way at least I know what I'm paying, and that there is no risk of me loosing out on some of the content, plus I'm patient with buying games, so there's potential to grab a special offer. I agree development costs must be rising, but there are many examples of games released in the last year or two, full to the brim with great content, and nary a microtransaction in sight. I'm not against them in an online focused game, for cosmetics, I just feel it crosses the line with single player games. I do sympathise with developers though, it's expensive making AAA games, but in my honest, humble and frankly useless opinion, there are always better ways than microtransactions.

@JoeBlogs I agree to an extent, but plenty of great games have been released in the past few years, full of great content, and only asking for the price of admission. I know inflation and dev costs play a part in deciding to include microtransactions, but there is almost always a better way. I understand the need in a game like overwatch, but it's a different story when the lootboxes contain game changing items, in a single player game. I mean, do you remember when the witcher gave us steady free content drops? A lot of the stuff we got is weapons and armour, similar to what I expect will be in the SoW lootboxes? I realise I'm coming across very stubborn lol, but I bloody love games and really hate the uncertainty surrounding how much content I'd miss if I decide not too pay more.

WB has always been greedy so nothing new here.

Can't say i'm too surprised, as WB are one of the more opportunist companies out there.

My concern would be about the extras taken out and how they will affect gameplay, if of course its weapons or armour etc...

And if its cosmetic, its seems a bit pointless, assuming it is still single player. Although I guess they are likely to throw skins based on the film characters or something to tempt the uber fans of the whole middle earth world.

This is fine pay if you want to pay. Microtransactions have never bothered me in games. Its a revenue stream for the company. They are there to make a profi and are not charities. If people are so against it do not buy the game.

A shame, I was looking forward to this. Will not be buying it anymore.

As a huge fan of the first game, this is a no from me.

I get that devs are trying to monetize games further to recoup dev costs but this sort of practice on a single player game that I would pay full price for at launch doesn't sit well with me.

Essentially, at worst, they are saying grind or spend not to grind. Or to translate, spend ages to get the good stuff in game or just buy it.

Sell me more content, make skins available no problem but don't make my experience worse then someone who stumps at cash.

I prefer the "I'll just wait until the price is inevitably dropped to $20 or $30 in about 3 or 4 months" strategy. If these games can be dropped that significantly in a matter of 90 days, then it's clear we are being overcharged to begin with. I've apparently reached the age where I don't need the newest, shiniest thing the day it comes out. Do I run the risk of missing the online multiplayer heyday of a release every time I do this? Of course. Does it matter to me? Not one bit. I don't make it a secret that I want 90% single player games and 99% offline experiences.

Press X to Ignore.

I'm going to jump onto the "I just won't buy it" train to speak with my wallet.

ALSO remember that crash was 2/3 of the normal price and has done really well financially... so you can increase profit by reducing price and selling more

I can wait for a sale. My gaming backlog is so large right now, I almost feel as if I'm in debt.

This will flop and when it does the game will go on F2P and/or PS+. Mark my words.

I'm out.

If we have to accept an increase in RRP can some developers ensure their products work before release.

I don't really care either way, in this particular case.
I hate microtransactions when they lock content out, because, since I absolutely refuse to spend even more money for a game I already paid for, that means that whatever's locked out, for me is just absent from the game. It doesn't seem to be the case here.
What worries me is what the player will be required to do in the game to get this content if they refuse to pay for it. I don't mind grinding too much (if it's not taken to ridicolous lenghts) but there's many other ways of making content free and accessible to everyone while also making it incredibly annoying and exhausting to get. It also seems kind of stupid to me to put microtransactions and loot boxes in a single player game.

Ballbags

Microtransactions are the children of f2p mobile gaming the curse in the gaming industry. They should have been left there were they were born.

Wow, seriously? You all act like little cry babies...don't like it => don't buy the game. Don't want to spend more for microtransactions? Well, guess what...you DON'T need to do that! Unless you are worried that you can't have a sword of 50 different colors...then yeah, what evil move this is! Love this page and the community here, but going through the comments just made me feel very annoyed No offence anyone, od course...

I'll just ignore them. I 100%'d the first one, i' m sure I can do it again just fine without cheats.

@get2sammyb The gaming industry is bigger than the film industry, and when you take into account some films are upwards of 200 million to make. It makes you wonder what their development cost is because its no where near what some films cost.

I thought the first game was just okay. WB pulling this crap makes me want to skip this one entirely.

I think all this boils down to what content is locked behind this pay wall without the 100 hour grind. First game was fun but ill not be paying extra or doing the overly long grind for in game content should i purchase it.