Current Events > New scumbag scheme- add MTX shop post-release avoid neg reviews Tekken8

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/10fbcc71.jpg

Tekken 8 is adding a MTX Tekken Shop weeks after release to dodge lower review scores. The ESRB rating is updated post release to accommodate in-game purchases.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1asbge0/tekken_8_is_adding_a_mtx_tekken_shop_weeks_after/

Its not a new strategy but it is super scummy and is becoming more common unfortunately.

Sputnik1337 posted...

Its not a new strategy but it is super scummy and is becoming more common unfortunately.

what other games did this before?

i remember when Crash Team Racing came out and that game doing this is all anyone talked about in regards for that game for months, and in some cases still is

then Resident Evil 4 did this last year and discourse over it there didn't even last a week

I give this like two days. that's the worst thing. this is normal now.

WingsOfGood posted...

what other games did this before?

Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled.

Reviewers need to learn to anticipate this or take the opportunity to hold companies accountable for times they've done this in the past.

"As long as they don't add DLC, we will go on loving the game."

"If they had an in-game shop after release, we take back everything nice we've said about it."

"So far, the game looks great. But we've been burned by post-release microtransactions before."

Karma can catch up to the companies just the same.

It's Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled again. Adding in a dlc storefront the moment reviews for the games are out. Harada is honestly lucky that Tekken 8 is a solid game, but this is a scummy move.

Really not a fan of this trend, tbh. I was praising Tekken 8 for not being littered with cosmetic microtransactions, where SF6 and MK1 have it in droves.

I guess this is their response to people wanting some more customization options. I just hope it's not price-gougey.

TBH this should be civilly punishable.

BakonBitz posted...

Really not a fan of this trend, tbh. I was praising Tekken 8 for not being littered with cosmetic microtransactions, where SF6 and MK1 have it in droves.

I guess this is their response to people wanting some more customization options. I just hope it's not price-gougey.

Yeah, the $15 TMNT outfits for your Avatar in SF6 was ridiculous. The $10 OG Burning Skull Scorpion skin in MK1 was also pretty bad as well. If Tekken 8 at minimum can be at a reasonable price range I don't think anyone would be so against this. We've seen fighting game devs take advantage of this shit though.

Anyone who played Tekken 7 knew from the second they opened character customization in 8 that cosmetics were going to get sold to us at some point. There are just far too few options compared to prior games. The big question will be whether any of them get bundled in with the season pass or if it just becomes a completely separate means of selling things to people.

Anyone here who bought the game, who wouldnt have if they knew this was getting patched in?

solosnake posted...

Anyone here who bought the game, who wouldnt have if they knew this was getting patched in?

I thought too highly of Harada with my cope that this wouldn't be the case lol.

I recognize that the character customization is a major pain in the ass to get working but it would be in bad taste, like they did in SC6, to resell old customizable parts from Tekken 7 back to you in Tekken 8. But I know this will happen sadly.

Laaaaame

WingsOfGood posted...

what other games did this before?

Plenty of them did. It's just that since the "In-Game Purchases" label was added in 2018 it has happened with many of them on a much higher scale.

For instance, the most basic search on Google immediately gives you something from seven years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/5xi0jk/for_a_game_that_promised_no_microtransactions_the/

FortuneCookie posted...

Reviewers need to learn to anticipate this or take the opportunity to hold companies accountable for times they've done this in the past.

"As long as they don't add DLC, we will go on loving the game."

"If they had an in-game shop after release, we take back everything nice we've said about it."

"So far, the game looks great. But we've been burned by post-release microtransactions before."

Karma can catch up to the companies just the same.

I hope this is some sarcastic thing cuz LOLOLOLOLLL if not

SFV and UFC4 both added in-game ads after the reviews were written.

Additionally, SFV added lootboxes.

ZMythos posted...

TBH this should be civilly punishable.

Basically if you're not happy with the way your game has been changed, you should be able to get a full refund. No question.

When they ask "do you accept these 37 pages of T&C's?", an acceptable answer is "NO."

solosnake posted...

Anyone here who bought the game, who wouldnt have if they knew this was getting patched in?

Absolutely. After getting burned before, I have devised several terms and conditions that the developer has to follow. They are literally a deal-breaker, with absolutely no exceptions.

I will never buy any videogame that has any of this mobile bullshit. It is not acceptable to me. It's why GT7 is the first GT game I didn't buy on launch day, and it's why SF6 is the first SF game I didn't buy on launch day.

I've said it before, but those who plan to stop console gaming when it all becomes digital will not be missing much. A majority of these AAA games will be glorified storefronts anyway.

who even cares about reviews? also they might avoid reviews but it doesn't avoid public opinion also if you don't like MTX just don't buy any MTX, you are against MTX not agaisnt the game right? so why should the rest of the game suffer just because of one detail?

DarkDoc posted...
Basically if you're not happy with the way your game has been changed, you should be able to get a full refund. No question.

When they ask "do you accept these 37 pages of T&C's?", an acceptable answer is "NO."

so should the game be rereviwed and people have an option to get a full refund any time a game is patched?

I still dont get why anyone cares so much about people having an option to pay to make their video game character have a different colored shirt when it has no impact on the gameplay or PTW type stuff.

Isnt it a common tactic to add crap after the launch window so the launch reviews are great and no one bothers to update their review or no one reads the updated reviews after the crap has been added.

While I agree that it's a lame move, I just can't deny that Tekken 8 is the best fighting game I've ever played.

Prestoff posted...

It's Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled again. Adding in a dlc storefront the moment reviews for the games are out. Harada is honestly lucky that Tekken 8 is a solid game, but this is a scummy move.

In fairness to CTR, all meaningful content was free and the DLC store was purely cosmetics. I can live with that kind of MTX.

It's not new, COD did that a few years back. Waited about a month after release to add tons of microtransactions.

Roachmeat posted...

I've said it before, but those who plan to stop console gaming when it all becomes digital will not be missing much. A majority of these AAA games will be glorified storefronts anyway.

SFV wasn't described as a game. Officially, it was a "content delivery system".

majin_nemesis posted...

if you don't like MTX just don't buy any MTX,

It's not that simple. If a game is designed around microtransactions, this decision is taken 2 years before release. They spend a long time maximising the ARPU. It's not something that just happens. It affects every part of the game, from the gameplay mechanics to the available modes to the difficulty level, etc. It literally makes it a completely different game.

majin_nemesis posted...

so should the game be rereviwed and people have an option to get a full refund any time a game is patched?

Yes.

If the game is changed in a way that wasn't described at the time of purchase then you should be able to click "no I do not accept" and get a full refund.

Especially stuff that changes the age rating of a game or whatever. Or if it introduces bugs. Or if it removes features. Or if it changes payouts. We need the developers to be afraid of patching a game.

It's the stores fault you bought something that they put on display. Such a scummy and strategic tactic they used to lure and bait you to buy their product. Never mind that you don't have any will power.

DarkDoc posted...

It's not that simple. If a game is designed around microtransactions, this decision is taken 2 years before release. They spend a long time maximising the ARPU. It's not something that just happens. It affects every part of the game, from the gameplay mechanics to the available modes to the difficulty level, etc. It literally makes it a completely different game.

This is a reach.

I just assumed all modern fighting games were full of this now

I am not against it but at this point people are just outright wasting their time negatively reviewing games with micro-transactions. Not only is it making no difference but now essentially every game does it to the most extreme level possible.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

I hope this is some sarcastic thing cuz LOLOLOLOLLL if not

Why not? Reviewers who aren't paid by the company for positive reviews should have the opportunity to state what's going to happen.

When Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter came out, Roger Ebert immediately called them out on the fact that there would be more films in the series. And you know what? More than half of the Friday the 13th series took place after the fourth and "final" chapter.

If Capcom released an awesome Mega Man game and then released micro transactions for new power-ups, I would absolute call out Mega Man 2 and say, "Let's hope they don't burn anymore good will with DLC after the release."

If you're not a paid shill, you should speak freely.

VeggetaX posted...

This is a reach.

Not at all. A game like SFV isn't a fully featured game that just so happens to have a couple of extra things you can buy. It was designed from the very outset to shift $1300 of DLC. Literally hundreds and hundreds of items. They also try to induce as much Fomo as possible, and to own your eyeballs for as many minutes as possible. They even patched in longer loading times, just to fit in more ads.

At launch, the only single-player mode the game had was designed to be as boring, as time-consuming and as random as possible. Reason being they didn't want you to earn too much in-game currency. That's just one example among many. Previous SF games were never like that. They had a different focus.

Instead of being about cool things you could do, it was a game about cool things you could own, if you just spent a little more money. If you didn't log in every week to do a brain-numbing mission, you ended up with shopping cart icons all over the screen. It's basically a mobile game through and through.

Instead of a while team working on "monetisation" strategies, id rather they had a team employed to make a decent game.

It is a crazy reach. The core attraction for these fighting games is the gameplay experience. If they wanted to do shitty monetization collection shit they'd make some mobile gacha game which they have. Your argument is literally that this game is built mainly for microtransactions and everything is secondary. But hey man I guess you're entitled to your opinion. I can easily focus on the gameplay and enjoy it as and ignore the optional shit you don't have to buy, even if people like you think it's some tactical way to bait consumers to buy their shit.

On a similar level, one of the Mortal Kombat games, I think X, throttled the progression system after the review window so that it took way longer to unlock stuff.

VeggetaX posted...

It is a crazy reach. The core attraction for these fighting games is the gameplay experience.

Which is why I wish they'd focus on it.

At launch, the SFV gameplay was fundamentally lacking (ie huge input lag, network lag, and poorly thought-out mechanics). The number of gameplay modes was fundamentally lacking (ie no arcade mode).

You know what they did about it? Absolutely nothing.

Arcade mode takes about 1 day to put together, but it took them TWO YEARS to add it. Input lag took them THREE YEARS to improve. Defensive mechanics took them FOUR YEARS to address. Network lag took them FIVE YEARS to attempt to fix, and they never quite managed it.

In this time, do you know what they did achieve? Six hundred costumes - that's one every 4 working days. Literally a flood of shit that nobody could keep up with. It's very clear what Capcom's focus was. The integration of DLC literally made the game worse on several levels. Additional spending was what drive every decision..

VeggetaX posted...

If they wanted to do shitty monetization collection shit they'd make some mobile gacha game which they have.

SFV was a content delivery system. Capcom's words, not mine.

VeggetaX posted...

Your argument is literally that this game is built mainly for microtransactions and everything is secondary.

It's fucking crazy that you'd attempt to deny it.

I don't mind them adding microtransactions in and of itself - I do think that microtransactions are bullshit, obviously, but I'm so used to seeing them (especially in fighting and racing games, but these days they're fucking everywhere, even The Quarry had purchasable costumes) that I genuinely don't really notice that they're there anymore. Like how people who live nextdoor to a pig farm genuinely stop smelling it after a while.

I can happily ignore microtransactions because I just straight up don't give a shit about spending real world money to stick King in a slightly different jaunty hat to the ones available in-game.

What would be utter bullshit - and something that I reckon is a very real possibility here - is when games start nerfing in-game rewards to trick people into buying things instead of unlocking things in-game. I wouldn't do this personally (not least because I'm poor, haha), but I can see why people would.

Like, the game at the moment is incredibly generous with the rewards - my copy only arrived on Tuesday, and I already made enough to get all the costumes etc. that appeal to me (which admittedly isn't everything available). But if they nerfed it to make it much more time consuming to get even just a few customisation options so that people get frustrated and just buy outfits or currency instead, then that's a really scummy move: especially since the entire first chapter of Arcade Quest is essentially just everyone telling you "Customise your characters! It's a great thing to do!", which would feel much more sinister in hindsight.

TomClark posted...

Like how people who live nextdoor to a pig farm genuinely stop smelling it after a while.

Exactly. In an earlier generation, they were completely optional. A gen later, the publishers were expecting everyone to spend $5 extra. A gen after that, they were expecting everyone to spend $50 extra. By the end of the PS5 it's gonna be $500 extra.

SFV had $1300. SF6 is gonna be double that. Anybody who thinks that's acceptable, and who thinks the gameplay doesn't suffer because of it, is an idiot, and I hate them because they've fucked up the games I enjoy

TomClark posted...

What would be utter bullshit - and something that I reckon is a very real possibility here - is when games start nerfing in-game rewards to trick people into buying things instead of unlocking things in-game.

We've already been there.

SFV reduced weekly rewards by a whole 95%. GT7 did something similar.

TomClark posted...

Like, the game at the moment is incredibly generous with the rewards - my copy only arrived on Tuesday, and I already made enough to get all the costumes etc. that appeal to me (which admittedly isn't everything available)

Exactly. Within 1 or 2 hours of playing SFV, you earn enough fight money to buy your first DLC character. By the time you've got 5 or 6 characters, the next one takes you more than a year. And literally 99% of players can never earn their 10th. And there were 29 DLC characters.

It's the classic trick of diminishing returns.

TomClark posted...

But if they nerfed it to make it much more time consuming to get even just a few customisation options so that people get frustrated and just buy outfits or currency instead, then that's a really scummy move: especially since the entire first chapter of Arcade Quest is essentially just everyone telling you "Customise your characters! It's a great thing to do!", which would feel much more sinister in hindsight.

Is one of the things I meant when I said the game is literally built around the DLC/transaction strategy.

@Solid_Sonic