This video has some details but for some reason has 7 minutes of "stream starting soon" on the front.

Basically the game has an army-building component for which there is "loot" that lets you use certain orcs or grant them abilities or whatever. You can find this stuff in the game world, but you can ALSO, conveniently, pay actual real US dollars (or your local currency) to get it faster from a marketplace through the wonders of loot boxes. Who doesn't love spending real money on loot boxes?. The normal BS about how you can buy some (lesser) stuff with in game currency and find some of the real money currency in game seems to apply.

This is a real bummer for me. Even though I was a little lukewarm on the first game I was looking forward to this, especially because most of the other big fall releases this year don't appeal to me. I know it depends on how it's balanced and there's a chance this will end up being not a big deal, with plenty of in game loot through normal progression, but I hate microtransactions and I hate them even more in single player games, which don't even have the excuse of needing the money for ongoing support.

Just knowing that the game wants MORE money from me is a huge bummer, and often it throws off the balance of the game, artificially extending the grind from what it would have been in order to entice players to throw down more money. I would much rather just pay more up front than have a game constantly badgering me, in ways subtle and not, to give it more cash.

This game has gone from a probably day one purchase to a wait and see/bargain bin for me, and that's a bummer because I was looking forward to it.

Even more than just this game I really lament the continued blossoming of microtransactions in "full price" games, which seems to really have been ramping up lately. I would seem to be a good target for these things since I definitely have more money than time these days, but I never use them because there's nothing more unsatisfying than just buying virtual junk in a game. It feels awful. You want to sell me a cool additional experience like the Forza Horizon 3 Hot Wheels Expansion and I'm happy to pay, but I want to EARN my loot in game.

I'm sure there will be more to say on this as more information comes out and especially as people get the game and see how it's all balanced and whether it's just a minor irritation or a serious impediment to having fun with the game, but I'm just disappointed and deflated. Oh well. It took Nintendo 8 years or so to get on the DLC bandwagon so maybe it'll be 2025 before we get "Hey, listen...did you know you can unlock the Master Sword right now for only $7.99?" and "It's a-me, Mario. And if you want to do-a a double jump you better find that ability in the Mario loot crates! Now available for only $4.99 each!"

UPDATE: It appears that there's an asynchronous multi-player mode where players "invade" each others strongholds and, oh happy day, the microtransactions apply there too. So for people who were upset that there was no pay-to-win element they could utilize with other players, worry no more!

Enjoy!

Ah, this generation. Never fails to disappoint XD

Only works on PC, obviously, but also completely doesn't solve the problem. I don't want to just give myself random loot. I want to play a game that's balanced for player fun rather than to encourage players to spend real money. The money isn't the (whole) issue, it's the intrusiveness and the way it damages game design.

It's the difference between "If you want the really COOL Orcs you have to do this awesome hand-designed mission to unlock them" and "If you want the really COOL Orcs you have to spend $15 or grind for 30 hours."

"If you want the really COOL Orcs you have to download this third party program and then just give them all to yourself and totally unbalance the game" is not a ton better than option 2.

Microtransactions damage game balance. They are bad for design. Removing the cost to them only solves one small part of the problem.

@bigsocrates: Yea it was more a joke than anything. I would be interested to see how much it actually earns and whether that offsets the loss of revenue from people like me who may have bought it but now I've actually got no interest that you've brought this to my attention.

As long as you can earn them in game with reasonable effort it doesn't bother me. Micro transactions keep games from being unreasonably expensive so if they aren't obnoxious im fine with them. Plus since its single player their is no giving one player a competitive advantage by them paying more, i think multiplayer transactions are worse.

I wonder that too myself, but I actually think it's hard to measure and that prejudices companies towards MORE microtransactions. If you make $500,000 through microtransactions that's measurable income. If you lose out on $1,000,000 through lost or delayed sales...there's no real way to measure that. You don't know WHY someone didn't buy a game. So even though in this scenario the microtransactions cost the game $500,000, they appear to be a net positive on the balance sheet.

I also think companies are trying to brute force condition us into accepting microtransactions by putting them in every game. Even if people complain or boycott for a few years they figure that the long-term benefit of getting people to see them as just the price of doing business is worth it.

Sure, if the balance isn't affected much then it's not a huge deal (though it does often clutter up the UI with a bunch of advertising for microtransactions that's very immersion breaking and obnoxious) but it's pretty rare that the balance ISN'T affected. You don't build a cash shop into a game for people NOT to use it. Even great developers like Blizzard can screw it up (Diablo III was not well received and part of the reason is that the cash auction house led to bad drop rates and poor game balance.)

I can think of a handful of examples where I don't think Microtransactions cause many issues but I would say that in the vast majority of cases they do damage the game design to some degree or another.

@oursin_360 said:

They do nothing of the sort. Game publishers will charge you as much money as you will pay. That's how economics works. Micro transactions are just another way to wheedle as much cash out of you as they can. They do not care one whit about your finances so long as you buy their games. If they could make their games "unreasonably" expensive and still sell them, they would.

April, 2016, Rockstar reported they made $500 million off GTAV micro transactions alone, yet GTAV rarely goes on sale on Steam and never for more than 50% off. They could easily afford to give GTAV away now due to the amount of money they make off micro transactions, but as long as people keep paying for the game, the price stays as it is. They'd be stupid to do otherwise.

Loot boxes in a single player game? I'm sure it's been done before and I'm just blanking on it, but man this really rubs me the wrong way.

@sinusoidal: The argument is that with development costs skyrocketing one of the ways that companies defray those costs without raising the base price of the game is inserting microtransactions. It doesn't mean that an individual game with microtransactions will be cheaper, but overall game companies can afford to spend more to make games if they are likely to see increased profits. Since gaming is a competitive space with multiple companies competing to have the nicest graphics and biggest maps, microtransactions will lead to higher budgeted, better, games with no increased base price (which has been stuck at $60 for a very long time now.) These kinds of alternative revenue schemes help keep the price of entry relatively low by allowing profits outside the "sell a game once for X price" model.

This is sort of kind of true, but the story is much more complicated. More importantly, in my opinion if microtransactions damage the game design then whatever extra budget they permit isn't really worth it. I'd rather a lower budgeted less shiny game than one that has had its balance entirely thrown out of whack.

So you're saying it serves no other purpose than to make money?

Honestly, these are the least annoying/offensive form of microtransactions to me simply because I feel no reason/need to engage with them at all. Curious what your examples of games where microtransactions throw off single player balance are because I really can't think of any. Admittedly, at this point the only ones that spring to mind using a system similar to this apparent Mordor one are AC: Syndicate and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided so my list is pretty short right now but I never felt like my progression was slowed down due to not availing myself of the resources that I could potentially buy. Doesn't really feel any different from DLC weapons in a bunch of games or whatever. Not advocating for this stuff but it just never bothered me since it seems like it's there for convenience/laziness more than anything.

Giving people more choices in how they want to engage with a game seems like a complete positive to me.

@imhungry: I can think of lots of free-to-play games that have horrible progression systems intended to extract money from the player, and can name a fair number of multiplayer games that have clearly gimped progression in order to get you to spend (For Honor is a recent example that comes to mind, and has pay to win stuff to boot, and even Overwatch has a loot box drip that would clearly be much faster if they weren't trying to get you to spend spend spend.) I gave the example of Diablo III as a game where upon launch the balance was clearly thrown off to get people to spend more money, but I guess you're saying that isn't a pure single player game?

That limitation is going to make things harder because, as you say, it's not common to have these kinds of microtransactions in single player games yet. Dead Space 3 had crafting stuff that was apparently quite laborious if you didn't spend money, though I never played it. Injustice 2 has an (in my opinion) abysmal and very annoying loot system, but that's a multiplayer game.

In the end it somewhat depends on your tolerance for grinding. If you don't mind the grind then you will be less bothered.

And this is not "giving more people the choice of how to engage with the game." That would be done through difficulty settings or cheat codes. When you could summon monsters at will in Sim City that was "giving more people the choice of how to engage with the game."

At best this is selling people the choice to engage with the game in a different way.

Sure, that's fine.

If they're egregious I won't buy them, if not hey who knows maybe. Microtransactions continue to be a pretty non-issue to me.

@bigsocrates: That's a nice theory, but it has yet to prove itself. Fifa 14 had some of the most profitable micro transactions ever, and 15 and 16 were more of the same and actually regarded as inferior in many respects. Fifa 17 is regarded as one of the worst. GTAV has some of the most profitable micro transactions ever and all it's done is delay GTAVI - which will probably omit single player entirely - indefinitely while R* continues to rake in more and more profits off V. Frickin' Candy Crush Saga was making 850 grand a day during its heyday. What has King - bought by Activision for 5.9 billion - done with its mountains of cash to make games better?

Micro transactions have done nothing positive for game design. Nothing. I challenge anyone to find a single example of where micro transactions made a game or its sequel better. They're little more than a way to line the pockets of devs and publishers by exploiting those with poor impulse control - often children.

I shall not be playing Shadow of War.

@sinusoidal: You're sort of preaching to the converted here (I did make a thread about how disappointed I was in these micro-transactions after all) but I think you're overstating things. The examples you give are fine, but there are counter examples.

DOTA and League of Legends are enormously popular totally free games (albeit with character limitations in LoL) that run on microtransactions.

Both Overwatch and Heroes of the Storm are able to consistently add new content instead of putting out new games through microtransactions.

The Forza and Forza Horizon series use microtransactions and DLC to consistently put out some of the most expansive and (IMO) best racing games year after year, and the money definitely goes up on the screen with those games.

I think the new Killer Instinct's business model was not so bad and led to what is, IMO, a pretty darn good fighting game with a lot of characters.

All of the above are games with a lower price of entry or a greater amount of support than they would have had without microtransactions. Some companies get a huge hit and just milk it without putting money back into the game, but it isn't 100%. I mean, basically the whole Asian game industry runs on free to play with microtransactions and has some of the most popular games ever, and people do enjoy those games. They wouldn't work with a "pay once, play forever" model because people don't have enough cash to pay up front, or the support costs would be too high.

@bigsocrates: Ahh yeah, I guess those are some examples. I just don't like any of those games though. I shall continue my curmudgeonly ways. Asian games (particularly Korean, where I live) are genuinely terrible though. The grindiest of the grindiest RPGs ever.

Oh goody! I feel blessed. Too blessed to be stressed. Thx Mordor!

EDIT: I think people are too lenient with publishers and their bullshit. Games sell for $60, come with multiple editions, sell season passes and multiple dlc, and come with preorder bonuses that lock content. On top of all of that, they are manipulating their game systems only to serve a greedily designed loot box system. No thanks. Enough excuses. These aren't F2P games. It's nonsense and someone needs to fight for the consumer instead of offering excuses that publishers already make.

Free to play games w/ microtransactions: makes sense

Full price multiplayer game w/ cosmetic microtransactions: ok

Full price single player game w/ any microtransactions: fuck no

@bigsocrates:Yeah Diablo 3 is a good example of their drop rates being throw out of whack because of the auction house but I assumed from the title and opening post that the umbrage being taken was with their existence in a single player game so thought I'd limit my thoughts to that. F2P games basing their progression around microtransactions seems like a given at this point given how the business model has been evolving, besides cosmetic only games like Dota 2. Not familiar with For Honor's loot stuff but Overwatch loot is totally cosmetic so saying that progression is 'gimped' is confusing?

Back to single-player stuff though, I thought Dead Space 3's crafting and material situation was totally fine. I don't actually like the game all that much but I don't recall feeling like I was ever too short on materials or that I needed to grind them out. The structure of it with the F2P-style 10 minute cooldown stuff rubbed me the wrong way but ultimately amounted to an additional few seconds of busywork so ended up feeling pretty unobtrusive. Just sort of played the game and there was enough. Same for AC: Syndicate and Deus Ex, just sort of fell into the materials/praxis kits as I explored the world.

You're probably correct in your labeling this as selling people more ways to engage with the game but I guess my stance at this point is that's probably ok? Maybe I'm just jaded on it but in single-player games I don't really see this differing from the kind of DLC we've been living with since the infamous Oblivion horse armor in any way (other than delivery mechanism I suppose) and, while I don't think it's great, I also think it's fine if they want to give people the option to spend money to get what they want in the game. From watching that video and judging by what is known of the first game and this one so far, it's all just extra dressing to augment the way you'replaying, not actually necessary to completing the game at all.

I want to know who buys this stuff? Is it all whales? I've never been tempted to micro-transact in a singleplayer game.

Full-disclosure, I have purchased 1 Battlegrounds Cosmetic Crate Key. And I got a cool tuxedo coat out of it! I'm not part of the problem!!! Nope! Not at all!

No, we must get out the pitchforks and torches.

Don't like it, don't buy it. If that becomes enough of a trend they'll stop doing it. No better way to make your voice heard. PLENTY of people "fight for the consumer" lately and all it seems to amount to is highly exaggerated bitching and reactionary spew on Youtube. That kind of attitude just seems to make everyone curmudgeonly towards all games. It fosters a kind of toxicity I wish would go away.

Microtransactions in $60 games should be illegal.

I guess I don't see how more meaningless shit to buy hurts me as a consumer. Either it's fun bullshit that I'll consider or something I'll laugh at and move on with the rest of the game.

There are lines obviously. Don't lock progression, don't sell actual endings a month later, ect, but most microtransactions seem well and truly harmless.

Just not buying it doesn't do anything. Companies have no idea why you didn't buy a game unless you express it somehow. For all they know it's because of a failure of marketing penetration, or competition, or whatever.

The way they might learn what people are upset about is if there are forum threads on forums they monitor to see how their games are received. Or tweets. Or Youtube videos.

In other words, expressing the REASON you are not buying a game publicly is an essential part of telling companies what they're doing that you don't like.

I have no understanding why people have this "shut up, never complain, take what they give you and be thankful" attitude. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I don't think this thread was overly negative. There were no pitchforks. Trust me, community managers monitor what people are saying about their games on the Internet. If there was no outcry against the Xbox One policies people didn't like and they just quietly didn't buy the console then Microsoft may not have reversed a lot of those policies because they wouldn't know what people were upset about. Voicing your opinion about what you don't like about a game or business practice is doing those companies a favor because if you announce what's annoying you at least they have an opportunity to change it.

Just quietly not buying a game is a very blunt feedback mechanism. I don't buy games for all kinds of reasons, ranging from my budget being tight one month to the game being totally unappealing to me for some reason.

Microtransactions almost inevitably affect gameplay balance. Companies don't just balance a game and then add a cash shop. Subtly (or not subtly) encouraging players to spend becomes a part of the design. This can range from hard progression blocks (won't be the case here) to increasing the grind balance so players are tempted to just spend a few dollars to skip having to do a bunch of boring stuff. It corrodes the quality. This can happen to a greater or lesser degree, but it happens all the time. Someone questioned my example of Overwatch earlier. I would guarantee that without a cash shop Overwatch would have a much higher drop rate, and less annoying crap like tons of sprays and permitting duplicates in loot with tiny credit payments. It may just be cosmetic, but it makes things worse.

The stuff here is not cosmetic. It means that either the coolest stuff will be semi-locked behind a paywall or at least take a lot more boring grinding to access. It makes the game worse. It also clutters the UI with advertising as the game tries to sell you cash shop crap, instead of giving you lore or art or whatever else.

Of course there are greater and lesser degrees of all this. Some games handle it relatively well and are unobtrusive. But you can't just ignore it. Even if you never engage with the microtransactions they affect your experience because the game is rebalanced to take them into account.

Gross

My biggest concern when this sort of single-player campaign microtransaction talk comes around is whether, in order to facilitate those microtransactions, the game will be made into something that must always be connected online to a server in order to run. In my opinion, any single player experience that is always-online is as big of an issue as the microtransactions themselves.

This is Warner Brothers we are talking about, so I can't say I am surprised.

@ripelivejam said:

I sincerely hope you see the irony of being pretty dismissive of someone posting their concern about microtransactions and comparing such talk to "highly exaggerated bitching and reactionary spew" and talk of "pitchforks and torches"... and then talk about it fostering toxicity.

Don't see it as ironic at all as I'm commenting on it, not originating it.

@ripelivejam: Fair enough. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@bigsocrates: I guess that's the difference, because I can indeed ignore it very well. It just does not bother me. Buy Now! interfaces? Eh whatever. Loot for sale? Eh I'm good.

On the bad side: this is gross and I hate it. Hopefully I'll be able to get through all of SoW without even being tempted. If all I have to do is play a little more and kill a few more orcs, that's cool. I liked that first game a whole lot, so hopefully Shadow of War is just better Shadow of Mordor.

On the good side (or rather, the hopeful side): I thought microtransactions were going to destabilize and ruin the Phantom Pain single player; I was actually terrified for a bit, until I saw a thread here on GB I'm pretty sure that alleviated my fears. The main game followed suit and they were next to no issue. Hopefully this is a similar situation.

EDIT: to be clear, the previous paragraph is not an excuse for their inclusion, just a hope for their lack of necessity. They should NOT be in the game, period.

@ripelivejam: what's the opposing view? People come here and defend the practices, and complain that people are complaining? Don't like the thread topic don't read it and comment. Same logic.

I think it's an interesting contrast between a lot of smaller studios encouraging more sales with periodic free content updates, while mostly big publishers try to nickel and dime you at every opportunity. I'm sure there's plenty of user data to backup the idea that squeezing all you can out of people before they get bored and move onto the next thing works, but I still don't like the mindset. Although Shadow of Mordor goes on sale for like $4 quite a bit, so this seems weirder.

I'm already tuned out when games add lots of "upgrade paths" to pad the gameplay, but if they increased any kind of grind to facilitate microtransactions, then I'm definitely avoiding it. That they feel there is any part of their game that players may want to bypass by paying extra should be a red flag for anyone who doesn't like their time wasted.

I think its just companies seeing what they can get away with. But I am suprised that people are suprised by this. Assassins creed (I it started at unity), the last deus ex, dead space 3, etc. Its been done.

Funny story bout DS3. Eurogamer ran a story that the producers told the devs that it needed 3 things. One was Co-op, which is why we got army dude, it needed to have micro transactions, and I forget the third. So before anything else, one of the key points was micro transactions.

Personally, I hate that they cook this stuff into games I pay 60 bucks for. But my bigger problem is them adjusting micro transactions so we just accept it. Remember when horse armor was just blasted on? Now cosmetics are accepted. I remember when Blizzard was hated for putting up a mount for 25 bucks in WoW, but now its a normal thing to see a paid mount. Its the normalization of it thats frustrating.

Its also a slippery slope for me. If/when we accept this, how long till they stack more on it? How long till they pull a Zynga, and start showing different people different prices for the same item?

Well that sucks, but I doubt it actually matters that much. The new Deus Ex had microtransaction that werent needed. Same with MGS V. I never felt underpowered in either game. Obviously this could impact the game but I seriously doubt it will. It bothers me more on principle as i'm sure it does for anyone who played games back when they were pure.

Those days are gone people #Dealwithit (joking)

@sinusoidal: it absolutely does lol. Sure they will charge you what you will pay but if its not going to earn them profit it wont benifit them to make the product anymore.

@lumbermancer: i dont understand the question, what other purpose would they serve? As long as its not obnoxious and a detriment to the game i dont mind microtransactions. The bottom line of any business is to make money and to generate growth when that stops happening the industry dies.

Meh, as long as they aren't egregious, I don't care. I've never spent a single cent on microtransactions. I don't mind some grinding if the gameplay is good.

No bueno. Hopefully it won't affect the game at all if you choose not to buy anything. Because I sure won't.

Warner Bros has been notorious with DLC; just look at any pre order DLC for the Arkham games.

This is just another unfortunate tactic by them that I put 0% of the blame on Monolith for but will receive backlash themselves as a result.

And to think, I didn't like the first game. The sequel never disappoints!

I really like Warner Brother's games but they are awful with microtransactions. MK, Arkham, and now this.

I always figure if you are going to put micro transactions in a single player game like that, that's your preogative. I just wont pay you 60 dollars for the game.

So if they want me to wait for a couple years to wait till the game is 20 bucks or less instead buying it at launch, they are doing a great job.

Though my knee-jerk reaction was "Fuck this," after thinking about it for a moment, my final opinion... is still "Fuck this" since just because I'd never be desperate enough to go for it for the sake of completing a game as soon as possible, that fact that micro transactions in big budget single-players games are still incentivized at some level is in anything but good taste. I get that games cost a lot more money to make these days compared to "the good old days" and that inflation is still a thing, but there are much better ways to go about making a little more than the standard fare, and other single player games have proven that already.

Besides, the first game was good, but not good enough where I was chomping at the bit for a sequel, and I still can't remember what's-his-generic-medieval-action-hero-guy's name is.

I already have too much to play. This makes the game go from 'day 1 buy' to backburner for me. At the very least, I will need to see reviews of how bad it is.

In a way I'm relieved, because now my gaming schedule just got a little looser.