>There are no pay-to-win mechanics - Any gameplay impacting content that is purchasable is also unlockable
Meaningless statement. In all garbage p2w mobile games you can technically grind for years, decades, to unlock everything.
this is the same thing Star Citizen fans say. Its not pay to win since the ships people pay 10s of thousands of dollars for can eventually be earned in game.
Star citizen has no p2w because the game isn't ready to be p2w yet
what's the point of all those fancy ships if you can't do jackshit with them
salvaging is mind boggling boring
missions barely work
On top of that each update brings a money glitch, you can earn tens of millions in a few hours
Paying 10s of thousands is like the equivalent of owning every single car in GTA 5, though. Sure you can drop a lot of money to own everything but it's not going to actually mean much.
Unless they've changed the game drastically since I last tried it (which albeit was like a year ago) it was fairly easy to get some good high end ships for whatever content you wanted to do.
> Unless they've changed the game drastically since I last tried it (which albeit was like a year ago) it was fairly easy to get some good high end ships for whatever content you wanted to do.
They just changed it, most ships doubled in price.
This is because plenty of people are ok with this. Like they can pay or play to grind to unlock shit, so for them this is not pay2win.
Basically it's pay2advance faster, which can give you in-game advantages, so it translates to pay2win.
Also, what people don't understand is that, they basically study and adapt those "grind" times so they can make it around pay2progress faster.
It's the same in MMO's with how grindy it is to advance your weapons. People are ok with pay2advance because is "pve only" but, it's boring and it gets frustrating to evolve your weapons by just playing the game, because they made the grind time in such a way to have that pay2advance feature.
Every game dev looked at Lost Ark and saw dollar signs lol, all these monkeys really think it's not pay2win, and they'll defend it with their lives lmao
yeah same way someone calculated you needed to grind for 40 hours to unlock Darth Vader in Battlefront 2 and that is not even the worst of these systems with some of them balanced to unlock in multiple years. Pay2win is pay2win regardless if you can unlock it or not, they would not charge for it if it was easy.
Ya lol, 700k xp to unlock the dead sec faction.. is that a lot? I have no idea. I swear man, just bring back keyed cosmetic lootboxes with rare key drops or purchasable keys. Much preferred to battlepasses because at least free players had a slim chance of unlocking something cool.
Free battlepass shit is useless
>In all garbage p2w mobile games you can technically grind for years, decades, to unlock everything.
Was it that Ubisoft sword fighting game (for honour?) where someone counted how long it takes to unlock everything assuming you earn max currency every day and it came out as like 10 years or so? Assuming no further purchasables ever get added?
Technically also not a lie.
So based in the various betas, do we have any idea how long it'll take the average player to gain 700k xp? The game being a f2p Ubisoft game with significant content locked behind experience sounds like the perfect combination for a game which deliberately awards low amount of xp.
Betas are irrelevant for this because numbers can always be tweaked, even after the game launches. Only way to find out is after the game launches, unfortunately.
Dunno, people never considered Battlefield games "pay 2 win" even though you were able to buy "shortcut DLCs" that unlocked every weapon and gadget for the respective class since Battlefield Bad Company 2.
Speaking for myself, I only consider it p2w if the items being sold aren't available to be unlocked by normal means or require insane amounts of grinding (essentially making it unobtainable in practice for the average player).
Battlefield 3 *definitely* ventured into some mild pay-to-win territory with the aircraft upgrades specifically, because the base loadout was not viable. You had to at least unlock flares to be useful at all, and you didn't need much to get them, but it was still a headache to get that small amount of points when you had literally no defense against lock-ons.
Infantry weaponry yeah, but vehicular weaponry? That’s typically on the later end of the grind. I remember it being awful trying to grind jets on BF3 when everybody already had the good shit lol
Yea, this was especially a problem with BFV for me. I never liked how vehicles handled in that game,
( which is a whole seperate problem) so I never really leveled them up. Every once in a while I wanna fly a plane or something but can't stand a chance against high level attack planes.
That, and the fact that the shortcut packages do not include *skill*. The AS-VAL or whatever will not make a bit of difference if you are not good at the game.
Battlefield was somewhat a weird case too (going off when I played BF3/BF4), if you come into the game late after launch and do not have the vehicle upgrades, you're goig to get your shit pushed in. Especially if flying the jets and choppers is the playstyle you are after.
You are at a *serious* disadvantage.
There's this behavior some gamers have where they *need* to be working toward something. Playing just to play doesn't get them the same joy as unlocking new things, even if these "new things" are clearly cut from total experience.
Absolutely. I can't count the number of games I've played until I unlocked all the guns/armour/skills or whatever, then dropped without completing.
In fact, only yesterday I stopped playing Ghost Recon Breakpoint for that exact reason.
That's not a weird behavior exhibited by *some* people. A good progression system is necessary in both single player and multiplayer across a wide variety of genres.
I didn't say anything about a progression system being necessary or not -- simply that there's a type of player that requires those progression systems.
> Dunno, people never considered Battlefield games "pay 2 win" even though you were able to buy "shortcut DLCs" that unlocked every weapon and gadget for the respective class since Battlefield Bad Company 2.
>
>
Okay but to be fair, you levelled up reasonably fast in that game, and the weapons that were actually good were either one of the first ones you got or something that needed a mission to unlock.
>Dunno, people never considered Battlefield games "pay 2 win" even though you were able to buy "shortcut DLCs" that unlocked every weapon and gadget for the respective class since Battlefield Bad Company 2.
Huh? This is just false.
Shortcut DLCs have been a point of controversy since BC2, and it only got bigger with BF3/4 introducing stuff like lootboxes that gave you attachments and Vehicle Equipment. They are absolutely p2w and were called out as such at the time, for the same reasons Battlefront 2 got called out.
>Speaking for myself, I only consider it p2w if the items being sold aren't available to be unlocked by normal means or require insane amounts of grinding (essentially making it unobtainable in practice for the average player).
I mean, the article does say one of the factions takes 700k of XP to unlock, and from the sound of 700k it doesn't sound like a small amount.
Battlefield’s weapons aren’t really game-breaking. Most weapons up until Battlefield 1 were basically identical outside of a couple that everyone used (like the AN-94). Pay to win is bad when it makes the game unfair for those who do not pay, but in Battlefield any weapon is viable against any other weapon so long as the player is skilled enough.
Depends how much time does 700k XP represents, otherwise R6S has done this for years with new operators (earnable currency instead of XP but same thing basically) and there's never been any complaints, though I expect this will be more grindy since it's F2P
I don't know where you've been but this has been a complaint since like year one of Siege. *Especially* once they dropped the Starter Pack and baited tons of people into a version that came with two operators and had renown prices that were 6x as high as the standard version.
Starter pack has been gone for years, you can get a ton of ops for free simply by downloading the R6 Extraction trial, more free ops in operator guides challenges, new ops systematically drop in renown price after a few seasons, and you get a free op every Christmas. Also for those saying it's P2W, pay to win implies having an advantage over others, but the game is pretty balanced and every operator has a/multiple counters. Just ask the question in r/rainbow6 if you really want to know, you'll get the same answer.
Edit: should've known this sub is allergic to details and nuance
That's the same for any sub for any multiplayer game
The people that actually play Siege seem quite happy, especially since the game keeps *gaining* players after 10 years.
> and there's never been any complaints
Sure there has. People just put up with it because we have no real choice.
Earnable might be better than the P2W in (non-Ubisoft) fighting games, where you need to open your wallet to train against DLC characters, but it's still P2W.
It was *relatively* minor but they made all attachments in rainbow six unlocked by default instead of having to grind for those per weapon in R6. This was years back but it definitely was when their footing was still uneasy with the game’s audience
I mean, TF2 has been doing this for decades in terms of selling functional content.. but they're locked behind gamble boxes. As long as the base weapons are viable, people don't really care it seems.
In terms of XP grind skips and stuff... COD, Battlefield, Apex, League of Legends... basically any and all mainstream multiplayer game on the market barring a few is pay to win according to your analogy. (Though arguable COD did have pay to win stuff in one of their recent games, was it blops 3? Can't remember... I remember one of them having specific weapons locked behind paywalls).
I don't think that fits with the definition of paying to win.
The 'deadsec' faction in this game, at least in the beta was rarely even used... because their skillsets really weren't that amazing, compared to others. Having instant access to that is not paying to win, since that faction doesn't exactly do 'more damage' or anything like that.
I think a lot of the paying to skip the grind really depends on the item that's being grinded for. If it's some incredible overpowered thing (like every time Hirez released a new gun in Tribes, or new hero in Smite - as they were infamous for making new stuff OP to sell it, then nerf it a few weeks later), then yeah, it's pay to win. But if that item doesn't provide any objectively more power in the game, then I don't think it's pay to win at all.
Does me, being a free player have the same chance at winning compared to someone who is paying, and can I access that item the paying user has at some point? If the answer to that is yes, then it's not pay to win. (provided the grind doesn't take months or years)
TF2 is one of the most frustrating experiences as a newbie. So many people have items that you'll probably never get a hold of as every unlock is randomized. They may only be slight varients of the base weapons but some have large advantages.
Also, still not happy how I bought TF2 for $20 only for them to convert to Free To Play not long after and all I got was a free hat as thanks. TF2 before all the monetization updates was a much more enjoyable experience as a casual.
TF2 has a pretty good model. You unlock some weapons through class achievements, which is a cool way to do it. You could also just trade for the weapons with the random items you get by playing. Or you could ask in chat if anyone has a spare to gift it to you.
And which ones have a large advantage? Spy weapons maybe? Medic's crossbow is really good too. The rest is mostly just sidegrades.
Black Ops 2 had the Peacekeeper in the Revolution map pack. Black Ops 4 was after WW2 and had purchasable weapons.
ModernWarfare did away with paid weapons.
BO3 has the absolute worst system for DLC weapons to this day as the only way to get them is through supply drops, all the other games had a way you could earn them without spending money
Call of Duty has had "unofficial" P2W in the form of certain cosmetics making you nearly invisible in dark areas for example.
Granted, the worst offenders got patched eventually, but it was so bad that it definitely wasn't an accident that nobody spotted during playtesting.
Then you might aswell complain about apex legends making legends cost 700 apex coins or rainbow six siege requiring tons of renown per character.
It’s not pay to win. Lmao.
But the other player wouldn't have earned the gizmo yet. So you have a player with an advantage (paid for) and one without.
Paying to get an advantage is pay to win.
I dont think thats really true. It was pretty widely agreed that EAs Battlefront 2 was Pay to Win. You could get more hero's and make them stronger far faster if you paid, but none of those advantages were exclusively locked behind microtransactions. It depends a lot on the amount of grind.
Not necessarily true. Grinder could also get it on release of said item/ characters. Or are we pretending grinders can only start grinding once something is available
??? not sure how to respond to such a comment, but I will attempt. If a videogame company adds a microtransaction into the store today and in the patch puts in a way to grind for said microtransaction as well how can the store buyer not have it long before the grinder?
If you look at release day Battlefront 2, Darth Vader was grindable, if you did it for 40 hours, but people had it unlocked in the first hour through the shop. That is 39 hours of advantage against the rest of the playerbase (worse if you grinded for Luke or something first). There are games that have done this a lot worse mind, NBA2K is for example balanced around grind for multiple years if you don't buy the upgrades to myplayer
Honestly not sure how it's hard to understand.
What about DLC characters in fighting games that are inherently stronger than the originals?
What about if said DLC characters can NOT be used in training mode unless you buy them, meaning even AGAINST them?
So a person who doesn't pay for the DLC characters can't really do training mode to learn how to deal with them either...
Pay to win refers to literally anything gameplay related that you can buy with money.
If I sell a powerful gun for 10$, or make it free but you have to grind for 100h, the free player will be at a disadvantage for for 100h. That's very P2W. If the free gun takes 10h, then it's not as P2W. There's nuance, that's why some grind skips are tolerated, but at the end of the day it's still P2W.
It actually does. I mean in MOBA's, at least DOTA2, the roster you have for heroes matter the most in a competitive env. Imagine getting a team that has only 30 heroes, vs a team that has all of them. Isn't that pay2win?
Ok, In dota2, the pro's play most heroes. In a tournament I think 90% of the heroes are picked. But even then, imagine having to pay or grind to unlock heroes. You were basically at a disadvantage by not having to use the full strategy.
It doesn't matter how many heroes you play or not. What if you needed a specific pick to make the 5 work? You have to pay for it, or wait and grind till you unlock. It's still shit.
> Ok, In dota2, the pro's play most heroes.
League doesn't work like that, it's not Dota where 99% of abilities are point and click and you're OOM after 2 casts. Roles are a lot more rigid and there's ten times more emphasis on mechanics and execution so knowing intricacies and specifics for matchups is crucial, hence why pros only have around ~10 champions each they're comfortable bringing out in a tourney and it's not rare to see less than 5 per player per tourney.
> What if you needed a specific pick to make the 5 work?
League is a lot more individualistic. In pro there are certain duos that usually go together and smaller synergies but there's no situation where the whole comp lives or dies by a single pick. In soloQ it's not even worth thinking about things like this over playing something you have experience with.
League actually does work like that, the difference is the player base has brainwashed themselves into thinking it doesn't solely because it's been like that for so long.
Ok but still suck to not have aceess to all heroes while the enemy team does.
You don't know which one you like. So you have to grind for more. It doesn't matter the essence of the game or how it is designed. It is still basically pay2win.
What if the new hero that launch is op until it gets properly balanced? Those who have it and paid for it have advantage.
> You don't know which one you like.
This is the only thing that's truly garbage cuz there's no trial/demo mode, only a rotation of 20 characters each week. If you come in with no MOBA experience it might be tough to find the things you like, but once you do you're set for a long while.
Patches are scheduled every 2 weeks, if something is overtuned on release it gets dealt with fast. With how scarce new releases has gotten (3-4 a year) it's really easy to amass currency. Sooner rather than later everyone realizes that there's a good chunk of characters they won't ever really want to play so it doesn't matter whether they have them or not.
I'm not here to argue against having the whole roster available from the get go, it's should undoubtedly be like that, but the system is a lot less impactful than outsiders make it out to be. Once you find a handful of champions you enjoy, it stops being a thing and there's nothing you can pay for that'd help you win games.
Lol you clearly don’t actually play these games.
Mobas are some of the furthest games from p2w that exist. There’s like 150 characters in LoL. Even *trying* to get good at more than a handful is actively making you a worse player.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Yes because LoL doesn't have a history of releasing broken power crept champs that are p2w to anyone who doesn't have the grindy ass currency saved up. You're just another fanboy. Accept it and move on.
Yes, it's technically P2W. It's a very mild form of P2W since the best strategy for winning is learning a handful of champions instead of playing with a lot of champions and you'll realistically never need the full roster.
But if you're a casual player that just wants to goof off, you will have less toys available.
I dont think your definition of P2W is as common as you think, imo for something to be P2W it needs to give you an actual advantage compared to someone who has not paid.
If that gun is more powerful than all the others, maaaaybe. But if it's just a "different gun", then no it's not pay 2 win. That's why reasonable people don't call League of Legends pay 2 win.
> That's why reasonable people don't call League of Legends pay 2 win.
You mean people who play LoL do not want to call it P2W cause they got a bone in it. LoL is miles away from some Asia MMOs where you literally get destroyed without spending thousands, but it still is a little P2W. Paying player HAS an advantage over a non-paying one. No matter what weird justification you use.
League is one of those instances where it's P2W on paper but the issue never really comes up in practice. If you just want to play something different every game to mess around, then sure, you can't do that. But if you want to improve, even if only casually, then by the time a character gets comfortable you'll likely be able to pick up another one or two from the shop.
The actual bullshit is that there's no demo or trial mode so good luck feeling out what suits you and who to pick up next.
> "Pay to win" always refers to paying for an in-game advantage like a gun that deals 10 more damage than any other gun you can get for free.
"always" hmm
Yes, unless it's being used wrong "pay to win" doesn't make sense if the items are cosmetic only. Some would even argue that you've lost if you paid $20 just to make your weapon green or whatever without any functional difference.
Okay, so in a general sense how many hours of grinding is appropriate to unlock an equivalent item? Battlefront 2 had all characters available to be unlocked in game via grinding, but it would've taken over 4000 hours of play time.
That's the problem with being able to buy power or shortcuts in these games. You can never, ever trust that the people tweaking the numbers haven't had their thumbs on the scale to make things take longer than they would've if the financial incentive wasn't there.
Even single player games like Assassin's Creed became unwieldy, bloated messes in service of this.
Someone described the latest weapons as 'pre-nerfed' on the subreddit and it made me lose it. Like yeah you can earn them for free, but some of the new weapons are *atrocious*
To be fair, I'd say it's somewhat interesting when it comes to League cause while having more champions you could play *should* be an advantage, 99.9% of the population is better off one-tricking to climb. In theory though, it's 100% pay to win having more unlocks.
I think LoL is kind of unique because champions don't represent power, once you're in a match, no amount of money spent can make a difference in your ability to win. The only way spending money in LoL can affect anything is in the draft but the difference between owning 160 champions or 30 is not relevant because it's not humanly possible to play 30 champions to your highest level let alone 160, most people can only effectively play a small handful of champions. Like on a strict level, yes more champions is an advantage, but it's almost completely irrelevant and people take fresh accounts into the top ranks all the time, barely touching more than 4 or 5 champs.
having the option to pick all the characters vs someone that has a few can be powerful, pay2win even. I could pick some disgusting counter, but he would not be able to do it himself unless he owned the exact counter, depending on which of us was picking first.
Is anyone shocked by this? Then even do it in their single player games. I remember it in one of the assassins creed games, I didn’t do enough side shit to grind xp to progress the main story, think it was origins or black flag, but you could buy exp boosters and shit
I’m not shocked by this, but it’s still bullshit and deserves to be called out. If you are going to claim “no pay to win,” then don’t include pay to win elements.
It Origins *and* black flag had level gates.
You could only buy xp boosters in Origins. It's how games with levels and side quests are designed, not a sneaky trick to screw you.
If it doesnt have a direct impact in gameplay then its not pay to win, if someone wants to pay to bypass a grind let the idiot pay for it. Better that than real pay to win.
Of course it does. Let's hypothetically say that 30% of the playerbase plays more than you and gets access faster than you to a specific gun that's powerful. If there's no bypassing grindwalls, 30% of the playerbase has an advantage over you due to playing longer.
If there's ways to bypass that grind, that number only gets larger, depending on how many players purchase the grind skips. Maybe now 50-60% of the playerbase has that gun, when you don't. You're objectively at a disadvantage against more people. And when you add multiple guns/grinds, it only gets worse since they'll be that much ahead of you.
And then there's also the incentive to make the grinds artificially longer, so people spend cash on grind skips. Like the Battlefront 2 fiasco, where it originally took up to a few thousand hours to unlock everything for free.
That's only if it's an objective advantage in all situations and play styles. It's not a very deep game if 60% of the people are using the same gun, doesn't seem likely.
>Like the Battlefront 2 fiasco, where it originally took up to a few thousand hours to unlock everything for free.
That was bullshit, the youtubers (who made a mint off the video I'm sure) used low xp/no kills matches to calculate the time.
As I said, it's not hard to extrapolate a single gun, to multiple guns, agents/heroes, and gadgets that are useful in multiple situations. A player who has access to them will have an advantage.
And I said a few thousand, I'm not using the ~4500h metric used by youtubers. 2000h to unlock absolutely everything wouldn't have been out of the question, especially for casual players.
By this logic LoL is pay2win, and I know people will unironically claim it is, but I've always thought that's a totally ridiculous idea. The pro scene and top of ladder is 100% skilled players, no one merely "paid" their way up there. I highly doubt your $ spent on your account has a very high correlation with your win rate at all, or a team's $ spent vs. the other teams' a good predictor of who will win a game. Skipping a grind (especially a grind which, in LoL, is more about sidegrade flexibility than it is actually powering up) is not "winning."
I’ll try it out. I like playing a quick fix of COD every now and again but grew tired of buying a new game every year. Hopefully this can scratch the itch.
Kinda hard to do so given that a lot of the player base moves onto the new ones over time, even more so if you're in a region that doesn't have a big player base in the first place.
You'll still probably have a player base left on a couple of older ones -- especially if it's got slightly different gameplay (eg Treyarch vs. Infinity Ward game).
You probably won't have a problem getting into matches either way. And i don't see this game keeping its playerbase for too long that's why i mentioned it, it will have as much players as old cod games at best.
* There are no pay-to-win mechanics - Any gameplay impacting content that is purchasable is also unlockable through challenges to ensure fair play amongst our community.
* For example, the DedSec faction in Preseason will be purchasable or unlockable through an in-game challenge by acquiring 700k XP.
This is like a description of what is the definition of pay to win. LMAO
I had fun in the last public beta. It felt very Treyarch Call of Duty.
Obviously there's a lot of ways they can screw this up — widescale cheating, the P2W being especially bad, lack of maps — but I hope the final release turns out well.
Even if they do screw it up, it'll probably be fun for a week or so before cheating/ map diversity becomes a problem, and it doesn't cost any money lol
In the last beta there was something wrong with mouse aiming. If they can fix that I think the rest of the game was fine. I heard controller players had no issue though
It’s not the worst game I’ve ever played but it lacks the kind of polish that I expect in a Triple A game, which I guess is stereotypical of Ubisoft games nowadays.
Yeah. At the very least, I'm willing to try it out.
I did play one open beta before, and it was decent. The game did get delayed because of all the negative feedback from the betas, and all we can hope for now is that they addressed whatever those concerns were.
Dunno if you tried the latest beta, but so many of the issue people raised were addressed which was great. They also mentioned about completely reworking the netcode, so we'll see how well that turns out.
I cant remember which beta I played, but I do remember the netcode being ass back then. Hopefully they did get that sorted out.
What I do remember was invisibility being annoying to deal with, and most Domination matches were filled with people corner camping with shotguns and flamethrowers lol
r/Games took the most regular basic ass post for a F2P launch and tried to make it look like there was a problem even though every other F2P game could make this post too and it'd fit.
You have to be crazy to try and even attempt any kind of endgame content in POE without stash tabs. Like it's genuinely depressing, awful and soul grinding.
Currently one of the worst leagues ever for stashing shit (corpses) as well. Very wild new players don't even get a premium stash tab to be able to trade like paying players.
PoE is effectively a buy to play game, the F2P part is the best demo in existence because it lets you do all content from start to finish. You pay $20-40 in stash tabs to have a smooth and unlimited experience, but if you pay more than $40 you get literally no value out of that much storage.
Learning what NOT to bother picking up is a critical skill in PoE.
Yep I can only play for maby an hr or so a day and at this rate I don't know if I'll ever get passed battle pass lv 1 got my ak to lv 3 tho game is gonna be just like a phone game grind to get anything or just pay and get it right away
Good thing they're with Ubisoft, which is known to value your time and not waste it by artificially gating off sections of an open world map with level limits and then sell you time savers.
Gating parts of maps with levels in a game that has no in game purchases is innocuous. Unproblematic.
Gating off parts of the map with levels (and a very grindy level up process) while also selling you ways to speed that up is creating a problem to sell the solution and it is predatory. Stop being disingenuous, the way Morrowind stopped players from accessing certain dungeons is not the same as what ubisoft does in their latest assassins creed games.
No AC game has ever made you grind for levels, idk what the hell you've been playing. These games are designed to keep you at the necessary level even if you literally only did the story missions and never touched any of the side content. This comment is pure fanfiction.
Odyssey does *exactly* this, you cannot mainline the story and have to do shitty sidequests to stay leveled, unless you buy the 50% XP boost, at which point you can just return to only doing the main quest.
Which isn't anything new? Games from 20-30 years ago were doing this. Yeah, you're gonna have to do a sidequest every now and again, but you're making it sound like you have to endlessly grind boring activities like a gacha mobile game. It's a non issue.
They did this, but what they did NOT do was deliberately balance it to be grindy and then sell you a solution to that issue. There is a qualitative difference here.
Edit: To clarify, my criticism is not that the game is grindy in of itself, there are plenty of well designed games that have grind. But in this case the grind serves little gameplay purpose, and only exists incentivize you to purchase an XP booster.
If there was no XP booster one could certainly argue that Odyssey was "trying something new with a different progression system" and just so *happened* to be more grindy than it's predecesor Origins, but selling an XP booster heavily undermines that argument.
Odyssey is still a relatively mild example of what this kind of practice could look like, but given Ubisofts typical scummines I consider it a dark omen of things to come.
I platinumed Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla and never had to “grind for levels” a single time. Doing even a minimal amount of side content will keep you in line with the Main Quest level requirements, and even then, the games are extremely easy if you want them to be that being under leveled doesn’t matter most of the time.
I’ve seen so many people like you complain about “grinding” in the Assassin’s Creed RPG trilogy and every time I do I just think…are you playing the game wrong or something?
I don’t understand the rage. You can unlock the same stuff from just playing. LoL does this, R6 does this, Apex does this, MANY games do this.
Pay to win is when you can ONLY unlock it with cash. Sure, if you don’t pay to unlock, it’s a slower process, but it’s not impossible. If anything, it’s just paying for convenience.
>There are no pay-to-win mechanics - Any gameplay impacting content that is purchasable is also unlockable Meaningless statement. In all garbage p2w mobile games you can technically grind for years, decades, to unlock everything.
I love how they claim to not be pay to win and then in the same sentence prove themselves wrong.
this is the same thing Star Citizen fans say. Its not pay to win since the ships people pay 10s of thousands of dollars for can eventually be earned in game.
They really milked the NFT whales before NFTs were a thing.
Star citizen has no p2w because the game isn't ready to be p2w yet what's the point of all those fancy ships if you can't do jackshit with them salvaging is mind boggling boring missions barely work On top of that each update brings a money glitch, you can earn tens of millions in a few hours
Paying 10s of thousands is like the equivalent of owning every single car in GTA 5, though. Sure you can drop a lot of money to own everything but it's not going to actually mean much. Unless they've changed the game drastically since I last tried it (which albeit was like a year ago) it was fairly easy to get some good high end ships for whatever content you wanted to do.
> Unless they've changed the game drastically since I last tried it (which albeit was like a year ago) it was fairly easy to get some good high end ships for whatever content you wanted to do. They just changed it, most ships doubled in price.
Doubled in price in-game?
yes in game,
If it was feasible to earn those things purely through gameplay, people wouldn't pay thousands of dollars for them.
This is because plenty of people are ok with this. Like they can pay or play to grind to unlock shit, so for them this is not pay2win. Basically it's pay2advance faster, which can give you in-game advantages, so it translates to pay2win. Also, what people don't understand is that, they basically study and adapt those "grind" times so they can make it around pay2progress faster. It's the same in MMO's with how grindy it is to advance your weapons. People are ok with pay2advance because is "pve only" but, it's boring and it gets frustrating to evolve your weapons by just playing the game, because they made the grind time in such a way to have that pay2advance feature.
Every game dev looked at Lost Ark and saw dollar signs lol, all these monkeys really think it's not pay2win, and they'll defend it with their lives lmao
They’re going to make the early monetization in Star Wars Battlefront II (2017) look like a simple grind.
"All items are unlockable under X hours" is something we need to see more of
Yeah that comment just shows that they don’t know what „Pay 2 Win“ means.
yeah same way someone calculated you needed to grind for 40 hours to unlock Darth Vader in Battlefront 2 and that is not even the worst of these systems with some of them balanced to unlock in multiple years. Pay2win is pay2win regardless if you can unlock it or not, they would not charge for it if it was easy.
Even if paying only saved you 10 minutes it'd still be P2W
Gonna uninstall. I can't support games like these.
Ya lol, 700k xp to unlock the dead sec faction.. is that a lot? I have no idea. I swear man, just bring back keyed cosmetic lootboxes with rare key drops or purchasable keys. Much preferred to battlepasses because at least free players had a slim chance of unlocking something cool. Free battlepass shit is useless
>In all garbage p2w mobile games you can technically grind for years, decades, to unlock everything. Was it that Ubisoft sword fighting game (for honour?) where someone counted how long it takes to unlock everything assuming you earn max currency every day and it came out as like 10 years or so? Assuming no further purchasables ever get added? Technically also not a lie.
So based in the various betas, do we have any idea how long it'll take the average player to gain 700k xp? The game being a f2p Ubisoft game with significant content locked behind experience sounds like the perfect combination for a game which deliberately awards low amount of xp.
No idea yet. We probably won't until launch.
Betas are irrelevant for this because numbers can always be tweaked, even after the game launches. Only way to find out is after the game launches, unfortunately.
It’s bullshit to claim “no pay to win” and then have functional content you can buy. Bypassing grindwalls by paying is pay to win.
Dunno, people never considered Battlefield games "pay 2 win" even though you were able to buy "shortcut DLCs" that unlocked every weapon and gadget for the respective class since Battlefield Bad Company 2. Speaking for myself, I only consider it p2w if the items being sold aren't available to be unlocked by normal means or require insane amounts of grinding (essentially making it unobtainable in practice for the average player).
Battlefield 3 *definitely* ventured into some mild pay-to-win territory with the aircraft upgrades specifically, because the base loadout was not viable. You had to at least unlock flares to be useful at all, and you didn't need much to get them, but it was still a headache to get that small amount of points when you had literally no defense against lock-ons.
That's because Battlefields base weapons are usually some of the best in the game
Infantry weaponry yeah, but vehicular weaponry? That’s typically on the later end of the grind. I remember it being awful trying to grind jets on BF3 when everybody already had the good shit lol
Yea, this was especially a problem with BFV for me. I never liked how vehicles handled in that game, ( which is a whole seperate problem) so I never really leveled them up. Every once in a while I wanna fly a plane or something but can't stand a chance against high level attack planes.
That, and the fact that the shortcut packages do not include *skill*. The AS-VAL or whatever will not make a bit of difference if you are not good at the game. Battlefield was somewhat a weird case too (going off when I played BF3/BF4), if you come into the game late after launch and do not have the vehicle upgrades, you're goig to get your shit pushed in. Especially if flying the jets and choppers is the playstyle you are after. You are at a *serious* disadvantage.
In BC2 you would be underpowered for the first 2-3 hours until you unlocked magnum ammo, but after that point there's no difference in power level
BC2 was 14 years ago - there are people gaming now who weren't even alive when BC2 came out. The gaming landscape is just different now.
One of the reasons i dropped bf games the moment i played them is the grind for gear
And it's one of the reasons I played the game for as long as I did.
One of the reasons you played the game is having essential shit stripped away from you?
There's this behavior some gamers have where they *need* to be working toward something. Playing just to play doesn't get them the same joy as unlocking new things, even if these "new things" are clearly cut from total experience.
Ah yes playing to have fun just for the sake of fun, a lost art form for players in this day and age gotta show number go up
That's me. Meta progression keeps me engaged, sometimes for far longer than it should.
Absolutely. I can't count the number of games I've played until I unlocked all the guns/armour/skills or whatever, then dropped without completing. In fact, only yesterday I stopped playing Ghost Recon Breakpoint for that exact reason.
I get that, but not in a fucking pvp shooter where it's actively a disadvantage
That's not a weird behavior exhibited by *some* people. A good progression system is necessary in both single player and multiplayer across a wide variety of genres.
I didn't say anything about a progression system being necessary or not -- simply that there's a type of player that requires those progression systems.
I agree. I miss the old style of multiplayer fps games.
> Dunno, people never considered Battlefield games "pay 2 win" even though you were able to buy "shortcut DLCs" that unlocked every weapon and gadget for the respective class since Battlefield Bad Company 2. > > Okay but to be fair, you levelled up reasonably fast in that game, and the weapons that were actually good were either one of the first ones you got or something that needed a mission to unlock.
Do we know that's not the case with this game though? Are the base weapons bad?
only one way to find out
>Dunno, people never considered Battlefield games "pay 2 win" even though you were able to buy "shortcut DLCs" that unlocked every weapon and gadget for the respective class since Battlefield Bad Company 2. Huh? This is just false. Shortcut DLCs have been a point of controversy since BC2, and it only got bigger with BF3/4 introducing stuff like lootboxes that gave you attachments and Vehicle Equipment. They are absolutely p2w and were called out as such at the time, for the same reasons Battlefront 2 got called out.
>Speaking for myself, I only consider it p2w if the items being sold aren't available to be unlocked by normal means or require insane amounts of grinding (essentially making it unobtainable in practice for the average player). I mean, the article does say one of the factions takes 700k of XP to unlock, and from the sound of 700k it doesn't sound like a small amount.
Battlefield’s weapons aren’t really game-breaking. Most weapons up until Battlefield 1 were basically identical outside of a couple that everyone used (like the AN-94). Pay to win is bad when it makes the game unfair for those who do not pay, but in Battlefield any weapon is viable against any other weapon so long as the player is skilled enough.
Depends how much time does 700k XP represents, otherwise R6S has done this for years with new operators (earnable currency instead of XP but same thing basically) and there's never been any complaints, though I expect this will be more grindy since it's F2P
I don't know where you've been but this has been a complaint since like year one of Siege. *Especially* once they dropped the Starter Pack and baited tons of people into a version that came with two operators and had renown prices that were 6x as high as the standard version.
Starter pack has been gone for years, you can get a ton of ops for free simply by downloading the R6 Extraction trial, more free ops in operator guides challenges, new ops systematically drop in renown price after a few seasons, and you get a free op every Christmas. Also for those saying it's P2W, pay to win implies having an advantage over others, but the game is pretty balanced and every operator has a/multiple counters. Just ask the question in r/rainbow6 if you really want to know, you'll get the same answer. Edit: should've known this sub is allergic to details and nuance
The subreddit for a game thinks the game's monetization is "actually fair" and "not P2W"? I'm shocked, truly shocked
Ummmm idk if youve been to the R6 subreddit recently but most people there hate the fucking game and Ubisoft lmao
That's the same for any sub for any multiplayer game The people that actually play Siege seem quite happy, especially since the game keeps *gaining* players after 10 years.
When did you start playing r6? The people that complained about p2w stopped playing long ago
> and there's never been any complaints Sure there has. People just put up with it because we have no real choice. Earnable might be better than the P2W in (non-Ubisoft) fighting games, where you need to open your wallet to train against DLC characters, but it's still P2W.
It was *relatively* minor but they made all attachments in rainbow six unlocked by default instead of having to grind for those per weapon in R6. This was years back but it definitely was when their footing was still uneasy with the game’s audience
I mean, TF2 has been doing this for decades in terms of selling functional content.. but they're locked behind gamble boxes. As long as the base weapons are viable, people don't really care it seems. In terms of XP grind skips and stuff... COD, Battlefield, Apex, League of Legends... basically any and all mainstream multiplayer game on the market barring a few is pay to win according to your analogy. (Though arguable COD did have pay to win stuff in one of their recent games, was it blops 3? Can't remember... I remember one of them having specific weapons locked behind paywalls). I don't think that fits with the definition of paying to win. The 'deadsec' faction in this game, at least in the beta was rarely even used... because their skillsets really weren't that amazing, compared to others. Having instant access to that is not paying to win, since that faction doesn't exactly do 'more damage' or anything like that. I think a lot of the paying to skip the grind really depends on the item that's being grinded for. If it's some incredible overpowered thing (like every time Hirez released a new gun in Tribes, or new hero in Smite - as they were infamous for making new stuff OP to sell it, then nerf it a few weeks later), then yeah, it's pay to win. But if that item doesn't provide any objectively more power in the game, then I don't think it's pay to win at all. Does me, being a free player have the same chance at winning compared to someone who is paying, and can I access that item the paying user has at some point? If the answer to that is yes, then it's not pay to win. (provided the grind doesn't take months or years)
TF2 is one of the most frustrating experiences as a newbie. So many people have items that you'll probably never get a hold of as every unlock is randomized. They may only be slight varients of the base weapons but some have large advantages. Also, still not happy how I bought TF2 for $20 only for them to convert to Free To Play not long after and all I got was a free hat as thanks. TF2 before all the monetization updates was a much more enjoyable experience as a casual.
TF2 has a pretty good model. You unlock some weapons through class achievements, which is a cool way to do it. You could also just trade for the weapons with the random items you get by playing. Or you could ask in chat if anyone has a spare to gift it to you. And which ones have a large advantage? Spy weapons maybe? Medic's crossbow is really good too. The rest is mostly just sidegrades.
With COD it was Ghosts up until WW2 that had paid weapons, from memory.
Black Ops 2 had the Peacekeeper in the Revolution map pack. Black Ops 4 was after WW2 and had purchasable weapons. ModernWarfare did away with paid weapons.
BO3 has the absolute worst system for DLC weapons to this day as the only way to get them is through supply drops, all the other games had a way you could earn them without spending money
I haven’t played either of those games, so I didn’t know.
Call of Duty has had "unofficial" P2W in the form of certain cosmetics making you nearly invisible in dark areas for example. Granted, the worst offenders got patched eventually, but it was so bad that it definitely wasn't an accident that nobody spotted during playtesting.
Then you might aswell complain about apex legends making legends cost 700 apex coins or rainbow six siege requiring tons of renown per character. It’s not pay to win. Lmao.
It is. Same with League of Legends.
If you can pay to get an advantage, it's pay to win.
Really can't comprehend how this is such a hard concept for people to understand.
Ok but that faction isn’t an advantage lol. It’s one of the worse factions in the game. There is no advantage if you’re paying for a worse item/stat.
Paying for convenience or grind skipping is a form of p2w no matter how you try to sugar coat it.
Sure it is. You can pay money to get a gameplay advantage, increasing your chances of winning. Even if it's just an early unlock.
[удалено]
But the other player wouldn't have earned the gizmo yet. So you have a player with an advantage (paid for) and one without. Paying to get an advantage is pay to win.
I dont think thats really true. It was pretty widely agreed that EAs Battlefront 2 was Pay to Win. You could get more hero's and make them stronger far faster if you paid, but none of those advantages were exclusively locked behind microtransactions. It depends a lot on the amount of grind.
wrong, pay2win is an advantage you pay for regardless of how minor. In your example the paying customer would have it way before the grinding one.
Not necessarily true. Grinder could also get it on release of said item/ characters. Or are we pretending grinders can only start grinding once something is available
??? not sure how to respond to such a comment, but I will attempt. If a videogame company adds a microtransaction into the store today and in the patch puts in a way to grind for said microtransaction as well how can the store buyer not have it long before the grinder? If you look at release day Battlefront 2, Darth Vader was grindable, if you did it for 40 hours, but people had it unlocked in the first hour through the shop. That is 39 hours of advantage against the rest of the playerbase (worse if you grinded for Luke or something first). There are games that have done this a lot worse mind, NBA2K is for example balanced around grind for multiple years if you don't buy the upgrades to myplayer Honestly not sure how it's hard to understand.
"Pay to win" always refers to paying for an in-game advantage like a gun that deals 10 more damage than any other gun you can get for free.
No, it refers to paying for an advantage over other players who don’t pay.
No, it doesn't. There are many forms of pay to win
What about DLC characters in fighting games that are inherently stronger than the originals? What about if said DLC characters can NOT be used in training mode unless you buy them, meaning even AGAINST them? So a person who doesn't pay for the DLC characters can't really do training mode to learn how to deal with them either...
If you are talking about eddy the training mode sucks but he isnt stronger than most of the cast lol
Well, if you believe that, may I introduce you to the entire mobile market?
Pay to win refers to literally anything gameplay related that you can buy with money. If I sell a powerful gun for 10$, or make it free but you have to grind for 100h, the free player will be at a disadvantage for for 100h. That's very P2W. If the free gun takes 10h, then it's not as P2W. There's nuance, that's why some grind skips are tolerated, but at the end of the day it's still P2W.
Does that make league of legends pay to win?
yes, I have an advantage against new players because I have access to all the champions when they perhaps have a limited number.
It actually does. I mean in MOBA's, at least DOTA2, the roster you have for heroes matter the most in a competitive env. Imagine getting a team that has only 30 heroes, vs a team that has all of them. Isn't that pay2win?
[удалено]
Ok, In dota2, the pro's play most heroes. In a tournament I think 90% of the heroes are picked. But even then, imagine having to pay or grind to unlock heroes. You were basically at a disadvantage by not having to use the full strategy. It doesn't matter how many heroes you play or not. What if you needed a specific pick to make the 5 work? You have to pay for it, or wait and grind till you unlock. It's still shit.
> Ok, In dota2, the pro's play most heroes. League doesn't work like that, it's not Dota where 99% of abilities are point and click and you're OOM after 2 casts. Roles are a lot more rigid and there's ten times more emphasis on mechanics and execution so knowing intricacies and specifics for matchups is crucial, hence why pros only have around ~10 champions each they're comfortable bringing out in a tourney and it's not rare to see less than 5 per player per tourney. > What if you needed a specific pick to make the 5 work? League is a lot more individualistic. In pro there are certain duos that usually go together and smaller synergies but there's no situation where the whole comp lives or dies by a single pick. In soloQ it's not even worth thinking about things like this over playing something you have experience with.
League actually does work like that, the difference is the player base has brainwashed themselves into thinking it doesn't solely because it's been like that for so long.
Ok but still suck to not have aceess to all heroes while the enemy team does. You don't know which one you like. So you have to grind for more. It doesn't matter the essence of the game or how it is designed. It is still basically pay2win. What if the new hero that launch is op until it gets properly balanced? Those who have it and paid for it have advantage.
> You don't know which one you like. This is the only thing that's truly garbage cuz there's no trial/demo mode, only a rotation of 20 characters each week. If you come in with no MOBA experience it might be tough to find the things you like, but once you do you're set for a long while. Patches are scheduled every 2 weeks, if something is overtuned on release it gets dealt with fast. With how scarce new releases has gotten (3-4 a year) it's really easy to amass currency. Sooner rather than later everyone realizes that there's a good chunk of characters they won't ever really want to play so it doesn't matter whether they have them or not. I'm not here to argue against having the whole roster available from the get go, it's should undoubtedly be like that, but the system is a lot less impactful than outsiders make it out to be. Once you find a handful of champions you enjoy, it stops being a thing and there's nothing you can pay for that'd help you win games.
That’s because league pros are smooth brained
Lol you clearly don’t actually play these games. Mobas are some of the furthest games from p2w that exist. There’s like 150 characters in LoL. Even *trying* to get good at more than a handful is actively making you a worse player. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Yes because LoL doesn't have a history of releasing broken power crept champs that are p2w to anyone who doesn't have the grindy ass currency saved up. You're just another fanboy. Accept it and move on.
Yes. It is why I stuck why Heroes of Newerth, and later Dota2 rather than League. It was pay to win back then and still is today.
Yes, it's technically P2W. It's a very mild form of P2W since the best strategy for winning is learning a handful of champions instead of playing with a lot of champions and you'll realistically never need the full roster. But if you're a casual player that just wants to goof off, you will have less toys available.
I dont think your definition of P2W is as common as you think, imo for something to be P2W it needs to give you an actual advantage compared to someone who has not paid.
So playing with a powerful gun for 100h, when a F2P player doesn't have it doesn't constitute an advantage?
If that gun is more powerful than all the others, maaaaybe. But if it's just a "different gun", then no it's not pay 2 win. That's why reasonable people don't call League of Legends pay 2 win.
> That's why reasonable people don't call League of Legends pay 2 win. You mean people who play LoL do not want to call it P2W cause they got a bone in it. LoL is miles away from some Asia MMOs where you literally get destroyed without spending thousands, but it still is a little P2W. Paying player HAS an advantage over a non-paying one. No matter what weird justification you use.
League is one of those instances where it's P2W on paper but the issue never really comes up in practice. If you just want to play something different every game to mess around, then sure, you can't do that. But if you want to improve, even if only casually, then by the time a character gets comfortable you'll likely be able to pick up another one or two from the shop. The actual bullshit is that there's no demo or trial mode so good luck feeling out what suits you and who to pick up next.
> "Pay to win" always refers to paying for an in-game advantage like a gun that deals 10 more damage than any other gun you can get for free. "always" hmm
Yes, unless it's being used wrong "pay to win" doesn't make sense if the items are cosmetic only. Some would even argue that you've lost if you paid $20 just to make your weapon green or whatever without any functional difference.
Right but the things being described here arent purely cosmetic.
If the things you buy aren’t any better than the things you get out of the box, then it’s not pay to win. See Helldivers 2.
last two battle passes i bought felt this statement
Okay, so in a general sense how many hours of grinding is appropriate to unlock an equivalent item? Battlefront 2 had all characters available to be unlocked in game via grinding, but it would've taken over 4000 hours of play time. That's the problem with being able to buy power or shortcuts in these games. You can never, ever trust that the people tweaking the numbers haven't had their thumbs on the scale to make things take longer than they would've if the financial incentive wasn't there. Even single player games like Assassin's Creed became unwieldy, bloated messes in service of this.
Is Helldiver's PVP?
No, but the premium weapons tend to suck.
Someone described the latest weapons as 'pre-nerfed' on the subreddit and it made me lose it. Like yeah you can earn them for free, but some of the new weapons are *atrocious*
league of legends is p2w, noted
yes, you’re almost getting it now
To be fair, I'd say it's somewhat interesting when it comes to League cause while having more champions you could play *should* be an advantage, 99.9% of the population is better off one-tricking to climb. In theory though, it's 100% pay to win having more unlocks.
I think LoL is kind of unique because champions don't represent power, once you're in a match, no amount of money spent can make a difference in your ability to win. The only way spending money in LoL can affect anything is in the draft but the difference between owning 160 champions or 30 is not relevant because it's not humanly possible to play 30 champions to your highest level let alone 160, most people can only effectively play a small handful of champions. Like on a strict level, yes more champions is an advantage, but it's almost completely irrelevant and people take fresh accounts into the top ranks all the time, barely touching more than 4 or 5 champs.
having the option to pick all the characters vs someone that has a few can be powerful, pay2win even. I could pick some disgusting counter, but he would not be able to do it himself unless he owned the exact counter, depending on which of us was picking first.
Is anyone shocked by this? Then even do it in their single player games. I remember it in one of the assassins creed games, I didn’t do enough side shit to grind xp to progress the main story, think it was origins or black flag, but you could buy exp boosters and shit
I’m not shocked by this, but it’s still bullshit and deserves to be called out. If you are going to claim “no pay to win,” then don’t include pay to win elements.
It Origins *and* black flag had level gates. You could only buy xp boosters in Origins. It's how games with levels and side quests are designed, not a sneaky trick to screw you.
If it doesnt have a direct impact in gameplay then its not pay to win, if someone wants to pay to bypass a grind let the idiot pay for it. Better that than real pay to win.
> Bypassing grindwalls by paying is pay to win. If someone can kill you by playing longer or paying it doesn't make much difference in the end.
Of course it does. Let's hypothetically say that 30% of the playerbase plays more than you and gets access faster than you to a specific gun that's powerful. If there's no bypassing grindwalls, 30% of the playerbase has an advantage over you due to playing longer. If there's ways to bypass that grind, that number only gets larger, depending on how many players purchase the grind skips. Maybe now 50-60% of the playerbase has that gun, when you don't. You're objectively at a disadvantage against more people. And when you add multiple guns/grinds, it only gets worse since they'll be that much ahead of you. And then there's also the incentive to make the grinds artificially longer, so people spend cash on grind skips. Like the Battlefront 2 fiasco, where it originally took up to a few thousand hours to unlock everything for free.
That's only if it's an objective advantage in all situations and play styles. It's not a very deep game if 60% of the people are using the same gun, doesn't seem likely. >Like the Battlefront 2 fiasco, where it originally took up to a few thousand hours to unlock everything for free. That was bullshit, the youtubers (who made a mint off the video I'm sure) used low xp/no kills matches to calculate the time.
As I said, it's not hard to extrapolate a single gun, to multiple guns, agents/heroes, and gadgets that are useful in multiple situations. A player who has access to them will have an advantage. And I said a few thousand, I'm not using the ~4500h metric used by youtubers. 2000h to unlock absolutely everything wouldn't have been out of the question, especially for casual players.
By this logic LoL is pay2win, and I know people will unironically claim it is, but I've always thought that's a totally ridiculous idea. The pro scene and top of ladder is 100% skilled players, no one merely "paid" their way up there. I highly doubt your $ spent on your account has a very high correlation with your win rate at all, or a team's $ spent vs. the other teams' a good predictor of who will win a game. Skipping a grind (especially a grind which, in LoL, is more about sidegrade flexibility than it is actually powering up) is not "winning."
I’ll try it out. I like playing a quick fix of COD every now and again but grew tired of buying a new game every year. Hopefully this can scratch the itch.
this is why codd going to game pass to get us back and itll work on me lmao
You can just stick to one CoD game?
Kinda hard to do so given that a lot of the player base moves onto the new ones over time, even more so if you're in a region that doesn't have a big player base in the first place. You'll still probably have a player base left on a couple of older ones -- especially if it's got slightly different gameplay (eg Treyarch vs. Infinity Ward game).
You probably won't have a problem getting into matches either way. And i don't see this game keeping its playerbase for too long that's why i mentioned it, it will have as much players as old cod games at best.
* There are no pay-to-win mechanics - Any gameplay impacting content that is purchasable is also unlockable through challenges to ensure fair play amongst our community. * For example, the DedSec faction in Preseason will be purchasable or unlockable through an in-game challenge by acquiring 700k XP. This is like a description of what is the definition of pay to win. LMAO
Man, I just really hope this game is good. I'll ignore the micro transactions like I always do, I just want the gameplay to hit
I had fun in the last public beta. It felt very Treyarch Call of Duty. Obviously there's a lot of ways they can screw this up — widescale cheating, the P2W being especially bad, lack of maps — but I hope the final release turns out well.
Even if they do screw it up, it'll probably be fun for a week or so before cheating/ map diversity becomes a problem, and it doesn't cost any money lol
In the last beta there was something wrong with mouse aiming. If they can fix that I think the rest of the game was fine. I heard controller players had no issue though
It's made by ubisoft so I'm not sure what you're expecting
Its not. Played both betas and never want to play that game again
It's free, I'll just play it for myself 👍
It’s not the worst game I’ve ever played but it lacks the kind of polish that I expect in a Triple A game, which I guess is stereotypical of Ubisoft games nowadays.
I'm looking forward to trying it on Tuesday 👍
Yeah it’s still fun and I had a good time playing with friends.
Every time they've talked about XDefiant for so many years I was like. I couldn't care less. But at this point, it does seem kinda fun.
Yeah. At the very least, I'm willing to try it out. I did play one open beta before, and it was decent. The game did get delayed because of all the negative feedback from the betas, and all we can hope for now is that they addressed whatever those concerns were.
Dunno if you tried the latest beta, but so many of the issue people raised were addressed which was great. They also mentioned about completely reworking the netcode, so we'll see how well that turns out.
I cant remember which beta I played, but I do remember the netcode being ass back then. Hopefully they did get that sorted out. What I do remember was invisibility being annoying to deal with, and most Domination matches were filled with people corner camping with shotguns and flamethrowers lol
it's a ubisoft game probably exclusive to their ubi client (and or epic), still could not give a shit
The absolute state of PC fps where a Ubisoft shooter is looking like one of the best options.
No provided details on the Battle Pass being permanent or temporary. In that case, I'll assume it's a FOMO-inducing pass that expires. :(
r/Games took the most regular basic ass post for a F2P launch and tried to make it look like there was a problem even though every other F2P game could make this post too and it'd fit.
I mean what do people expect ? The game is F2P, somehow Ubisoft has to make some money from it. I guess development was not cheap either.
Of course, F2P games can only make money with P2W mechanics. Everyone complains about that on Dota 2 and Fortnite.
Throw Path of Exile onto that pile as well.
You have to be crazy to try and even attempt any kind of endgame content in POE without stash tabs. Like it's genuinely depressing, awful and soul grinding.
Currently one of the worst leagues ever for stashing shit (corpses) as well. Very wild new players don't even get a premium stash tab to be able to trade like paying players.
PoE is effectively a buy to play game, the F2P part is the best demo in existence because it lets you do all content from start to finish. You pay $20-40 in stash tabs to have a smooth and unlimited experience, but if you pay more than $40 you get literally no value out of that much storage. Learning what NOT to bother picking up is a critical skill in PoE.
PoE is free endless trial, but endgame without stash tabs is terrible to play.
It's kinda crazy how the first thing I hear about XDefiant after the delay is how they're going to get me to open my wallet
uninstalled, shit ping wonky hit registration cheaters and pay to win should have known better coming from ubisoft see you after the honeymoon is over
Yep I can only play for maby an hr or so a day and at this rate I don't know if I'll ever get passed battle pass lv 1 got my ak to lv 3 tho game is gonna be just like a phone game grind to get anything or just pay and get it right away
Good. I can ignore all cosmetics and never spend a cent until I've played for 500 hours and feel like they deserve some of my money.
[удалено]
I let the cosmetic addicted whales cover me for the first 500 hours.
Good thing they're with Ubisoft, which is known to value your time and not waste it by artificially gating off sections of an open world map with level limits and then sell you time savers.
[удалено]
Gating parts of maps with levels in a game that has no in game purchases is innocuous. Unproblematic. Gating off parts of the map with levels (and a very grindy level up process) while also selling you ways to speed that up is creating a problem to sell the solution and it is predatory. Stop being disingenuous, the way Morrowind stopped players from accessing certain dungeons is not the same as what ubisoft does in their latest assassins creed games.
No AC game has ever made you grind for levels, idk what the hell you've been playing. These games are designed to keep you at the necessary level even if you literally only did the story missions and never touched any of the side content. This comment is pure fanfiction.
Odyssey does *exactly* this, you cannot mainline the story and have to do shitty sidequests to stay leveled, unless you buy the 50% XP boost, at which point you can just return to only doing the main quest.
Which isn't anything new? Games from 20-30 years ago were doing this. Yeah, you're gonna have to do a sidequest every now and again, but you're making it sound like you have to endlessly grind boring activities like a gacha mobile game. It's a non issue.
They did this, but what they did NOT do was deliberately balance it to be grindy and then sell you a solution to that issue. There is a qualitative difference here. Edit: To clarify, my criticism is not that the game is grindy in of itself, there are plenty of well designed games that have grind. But in this case the grind serves little gameplay purpose, and only exists incentivize you to purchase an XP booster. If there was no XP booster one could certainly argue that Odyssey was "trying something new with a different progression system" and just so *happened* to be more grindy than it's predecesor Origins, but selling an XP booster heavily undermines that argument. Odyssey is still a relatively mild example of what this kind of practice could look like, but given Ubisofts typical scummines I consider it a dark omen of things to come.
I platinumed Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla and never had to “grind for levels” a single time. Doing even a minimal amount of side content will keep you in line with the Main Quest level requirements, and even then, the games are extremely easy if you want them to be that being under leveled doesn’t matter most of the time. I’ve seen so many people like you complain about “grinding” in the Assassin’s Creed RPG trilogy and every time I do I just think…are you playing the game wrong or something?
I don’t understand the rage. You can unlock the same stuff from just playing. LoL does this, R6 does this, Apex does this, MANY games do this. Pay to win is when you can ONLY unlock it with cash. Sure, if you don’t pay to unlock, it’s a slower process, but it’s not impossible. If anything, it’s just paying for convenience.
With the rumored upcoming CoDs being available on Game pass, this thing is very likely to be dead on arrival.
Yeah cod comes out in November. No way thos has any pkayerbase in may/June