Shop the latest bridal dresses in Pakistan online at Mushq Pk for stunning and elegant bridal dresses for barat and other wedding events. Discover the perfect bridal dress in Pakistan with our extensive collection.
Discover the latest <a href="https://roheenaz.com/collections/sawariya-luxury-kalidaar-chiffon">chiffon dress design</a> from Roheenaz. Browse our exclusive chiffon collection and find the perfect Pakistani chiffon dress to elevate your style.
I wish more players would just ignore these cosmetic microtransactions and go with the default skin or at least limit themselves to ones that can be obtained by actually achieving something in the game. Using default skin while outplaying people in competitive games could probably induce some people to make quite salty comments.
It already was, activision and capcom both did that, and no, cheat DLCs aren’t accessibility, cheats should be free like they were back in the ps2 days and earlier.
On the one hand I agree, it was obviously a calculated move to bait sales before microtransactions were added, which is incredibly scummy. But on the other hand, if a game reviewer gave it a certain score before microtransactions were added and nothing was altered/removed from the experience that was originally reviewed, I guess I don’t see the problem with the score they assigned at the time (assuming it was reviewed in good faith).
You can install it out of the box and disable game updates and not see any microtransactions, which will let you play it exactly as it was when it was first reviewed. You won’t get to do any online play, but I guess the bigger takeaway in that case is that any game which relies on online/live service elements for continued engagement needs to have a big fucking “CAVEAT EMPTOR” on every review.
To be fair, most games these days have build in update checking, and more and more multiplayer games are always-online-or-piss-off type of games which shoot down your idea. I wish it was still possible in all games, but alas…
Right, but what I was getting at with how prone to change online experiences inherently are, it seems odd to rely on reviews to begin with. Sure I suppose it is irresponsible for a publication to make claims about the quality of an online experience, knowing that there is no guarantee of consistency over time, but the customer also shouldn’t approach any online/live service experience with an expectation of consistency, because change is inherent to the model. Enjoy it while it lasts if it is fun, but again, caveat emptor.
The feeling of betrayal people have about online experiences is thankfully leading to pushback against live service models in general. Too many companies out there doing bait and switch bullshit.
If a game like Tekken happens to have a solid campaign and fun local multiplayer, I would be okay with leaving a good review up, because that is pretty much all that would have been reviewed ahead of time before there were other players to do online modes with. If a publication has a specific “no microtransactions” criteria, though, then I suppose they can do whatever they like afterwards. But anyone should be able to still obtain the day 1 version of the game and play it offline if you don’t like the direction they went with its updates. You might just need to be more creative on PC to find them.
What do you mean “new shitty norm”? Companies have been doing that for years already. First time I saw it around 2017 I think. I not sure about the game, but I think it was Call of Duty.
From what i gather, they waited until after the reviews were in. They got a good score, which i guess would have been impacted by the inclusion of microtransactions, and released them after the reviews were in. Sounds like they were trying to avoid the bad press they would have gotten for including them (or perhaps purchases even, from people starkly against the practice)
Glad I didn’t buy it, then. I was waiting for a sale because $70+ is too much for a game… especially a fighting game. Knowing it has microtransactions puts it on the no-buy list.
Same argument every time. I don’t give a shit, nor will I ever give a shit, if the only micro transactions are skins. It does not affect gameplay, it only adds a little way to customize for the enthusiasts. That’s fine, and has been a regular Tekken feature since PS3. Why people care so much is beyond me.
“As long as it’s only cosmetics” has moved the goalposts from where we used to be on the matter. I completely agree it’s bullshit.
The Tales Of series has been bullshit. Used to be fun collecting new costumes from hidden events and side quests. Now half of the interesting costumes are either DLC or different edition bonuses which you can later purchase as DLC.
I don't get it, it's just gonna be skins, right? Pretty much every fighting game has paid skins these days, that's what funds continued development for balancing and new content.
Unless there's something really egregious being offered for sale, I don't see the issue. Cosmetics are one of the few MTX I'm okay with, for the most part.
I'm not seeing why that's a problem, if it's still just cosmetics.
Also, anybody who expected a AAA fighting game to not have cosmetic MTX in 2024 probably isn't that keen on the fighting game scene to begin with. That's just how the genre works these days; the players want continuous balance patches as new tech and exploits are discovered, and that comes at a cost. If you think $70 is enough for potentially years of continued support and updates, then you haven't been keeping up with the economy's effects on the gaming industry.
I'm not sure why any of this is a hot take. I get the feeling that most of the people in this thread aren't even Tekken players, or fighting game players at all.
These games only work with continued funding. If that's not for you, then that's totally fine and understandable. But these games require labor, and labor requires payment. And the community is willing and eager to pay.
You wouldn't work for free would you? Why should anybody expect software developers to?
You’re totally on point. Lemmy has a lot of people stuck in the past. It’s a significant bias.
The store will garner good sales and the Tekken devs will eat well. This will be enabled by people who see value in their work and happily pay for it.
It really doesn’t matter what a vocal minority thinks, when the valuable non-vocal minority is out there paying big bucks for Kazuya in a fundoshi.
In order to reach new heights as a game service, Tekken needs all the money it can get.
People also seem to forget that Tekken started off in arcades. These arcade releases were far more aggressive in their monetization, especially in Korea and Japan. You would have people paying 5-10$ for a couple of hours. Players would also have to pay for their online player IDs.
Tekken 7 still had this business model. The game released for arcade in 2015. 2017 for all platforms.
The game was thoroughly milked before it was more accessible.
Because the game isn’t free but the microtransactions are exceptionally high still are new characters going to be free since they are selling cosmetics? No, they aren’t so really, who’s winning here? I’m glad Project L is going to dethrone every single one of these games.
Yes but don’t you get it, the nerds want constant influxes of free new content - they’re being “literally robbed” by paying $70 for 200+ hours of entertainment as it is!!
Add comment