My question is why are you ok with this double-dipping in single player, fully priced AAA release? Can you answer without resorting to the "industry dies" argument, which is just patently false.

None of the games that use this, that I am aware of, force anyone to buy the micro-transactions. You don't have to spend the money. Why does it matter?

If game developers/publishers want to make some extra cash supplemented by users who want to spend extra money on a game they love, who cares?

@retrometal: An argument against micro-transactions in full-priced games is that it gives the designers an ulterior motive - to make you buy stuff. That can manifest in all sorts of ways - drop rates, difficulty spikes, research timers, and other frustration tactics.

The fear, then, is that every shitty design practice that has become common in FTP mobile games will eventually find their way into AAA console and PC games that you paid $60 for.

@encephalon: That's certainly an argument that could be made, but it's an argument which is based on worst-case scenario speculation. And there's nothing terribly wrong with that since we'd definitely think about how future games are affected. But so far there's very little precedent that suggests these horrible FTP practices actually manifest in these single-player games with microtransactions. Dead Space 3 probably came the closest with their 10-minute material probe thing but cooldowns for resource collection have been in games for what feels like forever already (earliest I can think of is AC2).

All this isn't to say that they're good, more that I guess while it's understandable that your fear exists in imagining the worst case scenario, I'd agree with @retrometal in asking why does it matter and perhaps more accurately why are people still freaking out about this stuff? Obviously game balance could be affected to make you buy stuff but the fact from what we've seen of games that have done single-player microtransactions so far developers have been good about not screwing it up. Also, game developers are people that want to make good games and have, in fact, been making some pretty damn good games. That probably counts for something right?

Right now there is no telling how objectionable this is. Lots of games do this. Not a fun answer but I am not getting riled up by the mere presence of micotransactions or I wouldn't turn on a single AAA game basically.

By the way considering there is a marketplace, in the video you can constantly see server syncs when they open a chest, break loot or kill an orc for loot. Which means that the entire system is always online and server based, meaning currency and all those loot details will be stored and protected server side. So the chances to be able to edit those values via cheatengine to skip the bullshit is very low to none. Unless for some reason they left the miriam currency itself unsynced and clientside.

@imhungry: That's fair. I think the worst-case scenario is so adhesive because the best-case scenario, provided you choose to stay out of the premium currency market, is "nothing changes." For many people, that's the very best thing they can imagine coming of this - that the game doesn't get worse. Meanwhile, the very presence of micro-transactions inserts a degree of mistrust that wasn't there previously. Small wonder people rush to believe the worst.

Publishers know by now that when they include these features, they're inviting suspicion and mistrust. They know it, and have judged that the potential boons are worth it. Fair enough. But they shouldn't be surprised by player resistance, and neither should we, as gamers, be mystified when people say they don't like it.

@tennmuerti: If this is true it also probably means always online AND that the game will become unplayable when the servers go down (if they don't patch out the server requirement, which few games bother to do.) Unless it has some kind of local offline caching that syncs when it connects to the server. So that's a nice added bonus. I love when singleplayer games are always online and have a limited shelf life. It's my FAVORITE thing.

I don’t get how this should change how ready you are to buy the game, at least by as much as OP is saying. Wait and see is a policy you should apply to any game anyway, and they could easily balance this just fine. Will they? Who knows. But I could say the same to whether or not the game will be fun, run well, have a good story, etc. I will wait to see how the system works in play and go from there, like with everything else.

If people are willing to pay, it’s good business to let them.

If it sucks, people will react poorly to the game and it will probably be adjusted. If it's harmlessly floating in the background, then it won't be a problem at all. I'm not a big fan of micro transactions, but I'm not completely cynical to them. So it's all whatever to me.

Damn you Double Dragon 3 arcade! Look what you have wrought!

So apparently? they also now have a competitive multiplayer mode that these same microtransactions directly affect. Even a ranked mode where again these pay for more power microtransactions are very much present.

@lumbermancer: already answered, you disagreeing with it doesn't make it any less my answer lol.

It's pretty shitty but I really loved the first game. Maybe I'll wait several months when they are practically giving this game away for free like they did with the first game and all the Batman Arkham games. Harder to be mad at a game when you've spent under $30 for it.

Wow, just what I wanted from Mordor 2.....a MGSV FOB equivalent where I can get invaded. A day one purchase has fallen back to a day 365 purchase.

I will treat them like the dozens of other games that have them and ignore them. The only time micro transactions bother me is when it is something clutch to the game that I cannot get otherwise. It still amazes me that people are surprised that mega corporations care more about money than someones feelings.

@encephalon: Yeah, Deus Ex actually hid the fact that there were single-player microtransactions from early reviewers. I don't think it would've been a day one buy from me if they included that detail to reviewers. As it is, entirely because of this early info, Shadow of War went from a day one buy to a "wait until it's on sale a year later" buy.

The whole thing just sours me. Even in the best case scenario of "nothing's changed but we added a real money store," it comes off as a blatant cash-grab that's in my face begging me for my money whenever I pause the game. I know these companies are out to make money, but that doesn't mean I have to like or accept their strategies. It's bad enough that I end up looking like a shlub dweeb in games with appearance and cosmetics locked behind pay-walls in multi-player games. I don't like the threat of it affecting gameplay lying under the surface waiting until somebody "does microtransactions wrong."

Even MGSV had what was a benign microtransaction until they updated it to where almost all of your money was tied up in the FOB.

During a recent stream monolith decided to address the concerns people had regarding the micro transactions and the other stuff around it: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/166235929

The pre show addressing it starts at 2 minute mark and is about 2 min long. If you don't want to watch it yourself here's the summary:

1. The game can be fully played offline.
2. They say that they have balanced the game specifically around playing it offline, without microtransactions. (which is ofc a bit harder to rly verify then the above)
3. You cannot loose orcs in the competitive online mode (contrary to earlier reports). The only way your followers can permanently die is during your own single player experience.

(Since they have stated that the game is able to work offline it therefore follows that the base currency should also be stored locally and hence a modifiable value (for those interested in tinkering with it with cheat engine on PC))

If a game includes a way to pay money to purchase things you otherwise earn by playing the game, then not playing the game has more value than playing it. By including micro-transactions, the game maker is basically implying that their game play sucks. And the incentive will be there to make the game play more annoying or time intensive to encourage people to pay to skip it. This affects you even if you do not participate. I will not be playing the next Mordor.

I'm not too sure what to make of the microtransactions yet - other than that garbage preferably shouldn't be there, of course. I love the first game and everything I know about the follow-up sounds very cool, but fucking loot boxes of all things are such a turn off. If those are even slightly more relevant than Rise of the Tomb Raider cards or the marketplace-menu can't be completely ignored I'll skip the game until it's about 10€.

But we'll see, the TR cards didn't bother me much - they didn't hurt the singleplayer experience any.

Between the microtransactions, making the Nemesis system seemingly more convoluted, and turning Shelob from a giant spider to a sexy lady for no apparent reason (see the 8/18 Beastcast), I think Shadow of War is going to be a mess.

If it's just the army building component I'm not too fussed, don't need an army, wanna decapitate them all myself. Don't agree with micortransactions in single player content on principle for many of the same reasons mentioned but if it doesn't affect Talions abilities I think I'll still give it a try.

Is there an actual uproar about the dumb Shelob thing? I mean, apart from the bombcast crew?

lmao what. they gave Shelob a fair form or something?

Yup, Shelob's mom was a primordial (a demon sorta-ish), called Ungoliant. And when Ungoliant entered Middle-Earth she took the form of a giant spider.

So, the train of thought from the developers is: welllll......Shelob's mom could basically, kinda, sorta sh---shapeshift...sooo...Shelob inherited those powersssss (she didn't)....and well.........see Galadriel is kinda hot.....and she's all "angel-like" and stuff.....soooo.....we made Shelob's human shapeshifted form (which she can't do) into like.....like a....like another sorta hot...hot galadriel, but the dress is black this time..............and she's bad.

why do the Orcs have Australian accents?

@pilgore: Silly. But the way the story is in these Mordor games, fine, whatever.

I'm more weirded out by comments about Shelob being a grey character. They trying to make a hungry evil spider into an anti-hero? Like that godawful Maleficent movie? Ugh. But again, these games are basically don't-give-a-fuck fan fiction, so fuck it.

@theht: That's such a weird one as well, Gollum made a deal with Shelob that she could eat Sam and Frodo and in return she would leave the ring alone, to Gollum.

That's. It.