Weird!

Currently, Shadow of War lets players purchase in-game Gold with real money, then use that Gold to purchase Golden War Chests which contain randomized, high-level Orc followers to fight alongside them. After listening to fan feedback, though, Monolith now says, "the core promise of the Nemesis System is the ability to build relationships with your personal allies and enemies in a dynamic open world. While purchasing Orcs in the Market is more immediate and provides additional player options, we have come to realize that providing this choice risked undermining the heart of our game, the Nemesis System."

I got to the beginning of the chapter with the endless tower defenses and promptly stopped playing, since I felt like I got my money's worth up to that point and didn't want to go through the hassle of 15 or whatever castle defenses. Maybe I'll go back and finish it up now? ...probably not, but maybe. Of course the cynic in me might just think that they've made their money from the boxes and feel like this is a better move for the long-term health of the franchise, but who knows.

I think you're right about them only taking it out now that most the people who would have paid have done so already. The main plus side to this is that it would be very hypocritical for Monolith or even WB to roll another scummy microtransaction practice into their games after this.

I also think they said they're doing something to remedy or "steamline" (is the word I think they used) the endless war section of the game. I've long since sold the game but I felt cheated by the end due to that section, so maybe this will make it better for those who havent played this yet, but that ship has sailed for me.

I was never on-board with these games even though I absolutely lose myself in most open world titles, so it's not doing anything for me, but I am curious if this will budge the needle on anyone elses interest meter considering how much time has passed.

Too little, too late.

Also, I'm sure this is a move that has been calculated even before the game's release. I mean really!? They, a company that employs professional and seasoned gameplay designers, wants us to believe that they just NOW realized how all that mtx stuff undermines the gameplay systems? After all that precedent as well? After people told them exactly that for months?

They still think we're stupid. Sadly, they are partially right.

Don't buy this mediocre game.

I think like Battlefront 2, Shadow of War's problems are more than just the loot boxes. Shadow of War is bigger and denser than Shadow of Mordor, but that doesn't mean better.

Loot boxes weren't what stopped me from playing, i liked the first but never finished and the way people described the nemesis system being too bloated in this just turned me off of it at least at full price.

I wonder if it's more a legal thing with what happened with battlefront.

Honestly there was no real reason to engage with this system in the first place, i thought the game felt lazy and bland all the way through, just happened to come out during a drought. I dont remember much pushback against the paid content though.

But how will the busy investment bankers now get up to speed in a fast manner?! I thought providing purchase option was to help out the people that have more money than time. Now they're making the game worse for those people. I guess they never really considered that philosophy regarding microtransactions. Strange!

I don't necessarily mind them taking it all out now to give it a sales boost & bring people back for the DLC now that they've made a good amount of money on microtransactions. I can't stand the obvious lies though. Are we really supposed to believe that they just reached the conclusion that their microtransactions don't fit the game? This game that has been in production for years, is a sequel to a similar game, and has been out in the wild for a year? They just realized that the orc encounters and the nemesis system are the stars of the show? Okay.

I mean, at this point microtransactions in AAA games are pretty much a given. People have mostly accepted it. Why not just be straight with the people and go with a more standard 'We've dropped microtransactions on the game now that it has been out there for a while. ' Suddenly you have a positive message to tell without having to treat people like naive children.

When the next Warner Bros game rolls around, can we ask the devs if they have thought long & hard enough about whether the microtransactions fit their game? It's not like the devs have a choice to simply not put them in when Warner Bros wants them in. Despite it 'fitting' the game or not.

I bought it at launch and got distracted by stuff, so now my wait will be rewarded with patches, balance changes, and my new OLED. It's like I stumbled into an accidental definitive edition.

Good to hear. The fewer lootboxes in video games, the better. A revised ending is nice too.

Is anyone even still playing that game? Feels like they got most of their money and now they decide "Well this was a bad idea, and now that sales have tapered off, let's remove this system to get some good will back".

Regardless I got that game and just did what I do with all loot systems I don't like, ignored it. That game had some moments but overall wasn't doing it for me like the first one did. This isn't going to fix that.

I'm going to be buying this game now.

The nemesis system is awesome and special, but reducing the players in it to goods you can buy completely undercuts the dynamic nature of the system, just like the post says. I won't be buying it at full price, not after the lootbox fiasco, but I'll gladly pick it up on a sale.

The Batman combat system hasn't aged well, it's too automatic/easy/boring. That was the problem I had, I didn't notice any premium lootboxes in the 6+ hours I played - I just heard people online complaining about it.

Needed fan feedback to understand that huh? Sure, sure.

I stopped at the same point and thought the same when I heard about this but I probably won’t go back to it considering how much grinding you could end up doing. It’s the Arkham Knight shit all over again.

Had a lot of fun with this game and the loot box stuff wasn't as egregious as people made it out to be. But if it makes people happy...

I also don't get why people think Batman combat is so overused. Sleeping Dogs is the only other example I can think of outside this and the Arkham games.

Eh? There was no grinding in Arkham Knight.

Grinding is stuff like hunting the same monsters in Monster Hunter: World over and over again. Arkham Knight's "do this shit to see the end" was just finish all the villain cases (i.e. side activities).

This might make me check out the game once it's reasonable cheap. At this point I might just wait for a complete GOTY edition with all DLC included. Once the GOTY edition get's cheap I will consider it.

But there is no denying that this sucks for the people that bought the game when it was new. If they really felt like the experience was ruined by these elements. This is like a reverse MGS V situtation. I unfortunately didn't get around to play MGS V when it had just been released, so by the time I got to it Konami had included a bunch of always online BS.

Now I'm happy I never got around to it in my backlog. Gives me a reason to finish it. Now if only there was a way to remove the LOTR junk

I care just a little bit more about this game now. ...though mostly because I haven't finished the first game, so my reaction to removing the loot boxes is more along the lines of "Oh, okay. That's cool. Maybe I'll finish the first game one of these days instead of falling into another Fallout 4 K-hole like I usually do when I have a week or two to kill."

I used hacks on the Shadow Wars chapter and it still felt like a slog. The ending is a real dud, too.

@ripelivejam: Witcher 3? Ryse? Mad Max? Hand of Fate? Remember Me? The upcoming Spiderman game? Almost any game that focuses on melee combat against multiple enemies tries to do a variation of Batman combat. Assassin's Creed, Dark Souls, and Dynasty Warriors are notable exceptions to this.

@larmer: Well as long as I'm always proven wrong. That's what's important!