there is a gif somewhere with the text. If the gif is made up, I apologize.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bravely Default for the Sequel Microtransactions; Completion time cut from 70h to 30h
- Thread starter Avallon
- Start date
there is a gif somewhere with the text. If the gif is made up, I apologize.
That could be the case, and how do you have the game already
demo. And I'm pretty sure no company would put microtransactions in a demo.
I heard about the micro-transaction thing awhile back and was totally turned off by it. I know it's not integral, for now-- but I'm afraid it might start affecting the balance of future games if they attempt to utilize systems similar to this in the future.
This went from a Day 1 purchase to a 50% off and/or used game purchase. I know that my actions won't have much of an effect in the whole scheme of things, but after SMT IV's and Fire Emblems excessive DLC abuse( yes i know, not mandatory blah blah, even though a lot of the DLC felt like it really would've benefitted the core game experience), I'm becoming less apt to support most japanese games day 1. If it means less of them, oh well-- they're digging their own graves.
Just glad we're not living in a day and age where direct downloading is your only option. I can't imagine having to pay a publisher's eternally inflated prices on top of DLC, -- and now possibly "fee to pay"(Thanks for coining this term, Jim).
It always starts off relatively harmless like this, until it becomes a mandatory element of progression.. and you find yourself totally comfortable with paying to win. I never want to get to that point where I feel it's okay to waste money on something like that.
Can't believe this shell of a company used to be so important to me.
On the topic of game's length, I'm not really seeing the reduction in completion time as a bad thing. I've watched a ton of battle vids and always thought that the attack animations were completely far too protracted. Speeding up the battle system and adding the fast forward options alone are probably responsible for 10-20+ hours of shaved off playtime. That's a good thing!!
This went from a Day 1 purchase to a 50% off and/or used game purchase. I know that my actions won't have much of an effect in the whole scheme of things, but after SMT IV's and Fire Emblems excessive DLC abuse( yes i know, not mandatory blah blah, even though a lot of the DLC felt like it really would've benefitted the core game experience), I'm becoming less apt to support most japanese games day 1. If it means less of them, oh well-- they're digging their own graves.
Just glad we're not living in a day and age where direct downloading is your only option. I can't imagine having to pay a publisher's eternally inflated prices on top of DLC, -- and now possibly "fee to pay"(Thanks for coining this term, Jim).
It always starts off relatively harmless like this, until it becomes a mandatory element of progression.. and you find yourself totally comfortable with paying to win. I never want to get to that point where I feel it's okay to waste money on something like that.
Can't believe this shell of a company used to be so important to me.
On the topic of game's length, I'm not really seeing the reduction in completion time as a bad thing. I've watched a ton of battle vids and always thought that the attack animations were completely far too protracted. Speeding up the battle system and adding the fast forward options alone are probably responsible for 10-20+ hours of shaved off playtime. That's a good thing!!
GhostTrick
Banned
Sure, but what I'm trying to tell you is that it's the wrong way. Because clearly, unless you can tell why you don't buy it to Square-Enix, just skipping it for something nearly inexistent will not send the message you think it will.
You have a link to the gif ?
If it's that one, that's clearly the tutorial show-off. They do that when they explain you things.
Not a demo. Final game.
Well, that's why I'm being vocal about it. E-mails, tweets, forum posts. It will, in theory, add up. Especially if done to the right people and in the right way.
Eventually someone will know that I didn't buy Bravely Default because of the microtransactions. Whether that matters at all to Square-Enix is a completely different discussion.
I don't like microtransactions as the next person, but I'll worry about future games in this series when they are announced. Not sure what the issue is with this game. If people want to vote with their wallets, then not buying the game doesn't help at all. Buying the game and not buying the DLC helps. They have stats of the percentage of players who have bought DLC, which is one of the primary points for these business decisions for developers to spend time developing it or not.
I don't think they are though for what it cost to localise they probably aren't making a great return, hence why we see so many reluctant localisations in the first place.
I'm sure they could sustain themselves quite happily over in Japan, Japanese culture is more accepting of this what with pachinko, TCG and mobile games.
There is a reason why we call Namco Scamco and this way of business seems to be infecting a lot of JP games lately.
I'll support this game but remain sceptical and worried where this is heading.
What does "adding microtransactions" mean?
It's a problem phrase, and one you need to be cautious about - because you're actually encompassing *two* ideas with that statement, and assuming that they're both equivalent, when they are not.
The two ideas:
* Adding microtransactions to ease progress
* Adjusting the rate of progress to make microtransactions more enticing.
Tell me, in the absence of the latter, what the problem is with the former? The microtransactions, in isolation, with no direct knock-on effect to the pacing of the game.
Sure, but what I'm trying to tell you is that it's the wrong way. Because clearly, unless you can tell why you don't buy it to Square-Enix, just skipping it for something nearly inexistent will not send the message you think it will.
You have a link to the gif ?
If it's that one, that's clearly the tutorial show-off. They do that when they explain you things.
Not a demo. Final game.
got it.
I've yet to experience "the absence of the latter". Any good examples?
In the absence of the latter than the former is fine.
The problem is that the latter is too tempting for publishers to leave on the table. I don't want to end up playing Final Fantasy: Candy Crush Edition in 5 years because of my implicit support of that type of microtransaction.
Card Hunter is really good at being a F2P game with Microtransactions that aren't required in any sense of the word. Too bad it's not more popular.
Yes I realize that not buying wouldn't help and it is most likely that SE instead will take it as "west doesn't have any interest in this kind of game", which put us on lose-lose situation. I'll stilk buy the game, but It wluldn't stop me from condemning suvh practice.
There isn't anything for us to get our point across to tge devs/pubs you see, so I don't surprised if they boycott the game because they are frustated since (they think) it is the only way. Video game is one hell of a massive industry that involved a lot of people. Without the help (proper) journalist and academics, we we wouldn't get anywhere soon.
theprodigy
Member
clearly these people haven't tried playing Xenoblade quickly
anyway not seeing the problem here, we can always mock SE later if microtransactions get dumb in the next game
What makes you assume that? They know that they're balancing a fine line between gaining microtransaction sales and *losing* the core game sales, which are *far* more lucrative. They've found a reasonable, non-invasive compromise.
Tell me why they'd be motivated to make the grind markedly worse when that is a criterion which people would decide to not purchase the game based on.
Remember: They do not want to jeopardise their primary sales. Microtransactions are a *bonus* for them. The fundamental economy of games suggests to me that the microtransactions-on-top-of-normal-pay model will not support whales.
Bravely Default.
You're rejecting this game for what you fear might happen rather than acknowledging it for the reality of what it is. When it becomes that, reject it. Until then, I see no problems with acknowledging that this method is actually kinda okay.
The reaction to this I believe is slightly overblown. Where were the people complaining about the +10/20 levels DLC in Tales games? This is the exact same thing. You don't or ever will need SP to complete the game, and those who do are most likely doing themselves a disservice.
If you don't buy the game just because of a completely optional feature, I don't think you are being reasonable. This isn't a crappy mobage where it's impossible to beat unless you throw money at it.
If you don't buy the game just because of a completely optional feature, I don't think you are being reasonable. This isn't a crappy mobage where it's impossible to beat unless you throw money at it.
If there is someone at Square Enix who shouldn't be accused of not listening to fans it is Tomoya Asano. You just have to look at the twitter page or the fact he made a giant list of people's suggestions to improve the game to make For the Sequel.
I suggested it before but I reckon this was an idea implemented to appease higher ups. That is why it's not so intrusive.
I suggested it before but I reckon this was an idea implemented to appease higher ups. That is why it's not so intrusive.
Not sure if the person I talked to just overlooked the microtransactions, but those don't even seem to be included in the European version in the first place...
People have been complaining about Namco DLC since Idol Master 360, I guess people just ended up accepting it.
Yet !
Lets not forget this is the same company that gave us All the Bravest.
Tales of Vesperia.
Square-Enix is in dire straits right now. They're a global company whose image cannot afford to be further tarnished by questionable *cough* design choices like this. I can't speak for anyone else, but knowing that you're actually told in-game that you can pay your way to victory completely breaks the immersion factor for me.
I don't think you should be skeptical, but you should be worried. SE has shown in the mobile market what they're all about, if they can get away with it. This is just a way to introduce the idea of micro-transactions to a new market. If they can make you comfortable with the idea, despite not intending to use it. They've succeeded. It gives them a foundation to build on that tolerance level. Before you know it, their games will be stacked with micro-transactions which may even effect the balance of the core gaming experience.
I think it would be foolish to mistake this for hyperbole, when it seems to be the direction that many companies are taking and want to take the industry in. Square-Enix has already shown their stripes in the mobile market. Now it's a matter of convincing the handheld market that these transactions are optional and harmless, until they're not.
Just my personal opinion, but no game is worth being taken in by. I really want this game, --now it's just less so.
Even IF it would send that massage, I* would not care, because I don't have a problem with microtransactions. They are not inherently a bad thing (regardless of whether it is a f2p or full price title), and as long as they are not the bad kind I don't see a reason to complain.
It just comes across as the typical complaining for the sake of complaining.
*And most gamers
Zero-Crescent
Member
- Team Fortress 2
- Shin Megami Tensei IV
- Tribes: Ascend
- Sleeping Dogs/Saints Row the Third (Cheat DLC)
- Tiny Tower
That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others.
It does not effect the game.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
This game does have an easy mode.
There's an easy mode -- and you can change difficulty modes on the fly during the gameplay. You can also adjust the amount of random encounters without any hassle.
This sounds initially fucked up, but when you put it like that I'm actually all for this.
If the game's too hard, get better. You want it easier? Pay to make it easier. I'm sick of games being dumbed down because players in general have been coddled for so many years.
Look, I'll buy the game.
But the way the Developer said "the game is too hard for people blah blah, couldn't finish the game" so we add this feature and you pay for it is just bullshit. It's all about the money period, why couldn't they say it honestly "we needed the additional money for our future projects and hope to make a great sequel, I hope you guys understand this" rather than treating their gamers Stupid, and we wouldn't figure out their motivation.
And there are better alternatives for micro transactions like Outfits and new effects for enchantment and spells? People love that stuff.
But the way the Developer said "the game is too hard for people blah blah, couldn't finish the game" so we add this feature and you pay for it is just bullshit. It's all about the money period, why couldn't they say it honestly "we needed the additional money for our future projects and hope to make a great sequel, I hope you guys understand this" rather than treating their gamers Stupid, and we wouldn't figure out their motivation.
And there are better alternatives for micro transactions like Outfits and new effects for enchantment and spells? People love that stuff.
PedroLumpy
Member
Alright so how about this.
Dev/Publisher adds micro-transactions to allow someone to speed up the grind. This adds an incentive for the Dev/Publisher to worsen the grind so that they get more money. However that doesn't necessarily mean they actually did make the grind worse for more money. Does Bravely Default? Maybe so, maybe not. It's nigh impossible to know what the 'intended' grind was originally anyway, so who knows.
So instead let's take a look at the possible outcomes of adding these sorts micro-transactions.
Now our BEST CASE scenario, the best thing we can hope for, is that the game doesn't get worse. But there's a whole range of degrees to which this could be bad. .
So here we all are, arguing over to what degree of bad are these micro-transactions. Some say it ends up not affecting the game, some say they won't buy the game. But isn't arguing over how bad something is kind of beside the point? Wherever it is on the badness scale, it's still bad. I don't think I've seen a single post from someone talking about how good this is and that their game experience will be improved. Does that not concern everyone?
Perhaps Bravely Default is unaffected. Even so, these micro-transactions were never going to make your game better, but ran the risk of making it worse. Is that not reason enough to oppose it?
Dev/Publisher adds micro-transactions to allow someone to speed up the grind. This adds an incentive for the Dev/Publisher to worsen the grind so that they get more money. However that doesn't necessarily mean they actually did make the grind worse for more money. Does Bravely Default? Maybe so, maybe not. It's nigh impossible to know what the 'intended' grind was originally anyway, so who knows.
So instead let's take a look at the possible outcomes of adding these sorts micro-transactions.
- Grind is unchanged. Game is no better or worse for having micro-transactions.
- Grind is slightly increased, and the odd annoying popup is added.
- Grind from hell is added, game now takes a bazillion hours, popups added everywhere.
Now our BEST CASE scenario, the best thing we can hope for, is that the game doesn't get worse. But there's a whole range of degrees to which this could be bad. .
So here we all are, arguing over to what degree of bad are these micro-transactions. Some say it ends up not affecting the game, some say they won't buy the game. But isn't arguing over how bad something is kind of beside the point? Wherever it is on the badness scale, it's still bad. I don't think I've seen a single post from someone talking about how good this is and that their game experience will be improved. Does that not concern everyone?
Perhaps Bravely Default is unaffected. Even so, these micro-transactions were never going to make your game better, but ran the risk of making it worse. Is that not reason enough to oppose it?
The SP drinks aren't what made the game easier to complete. The fact that they took a lot of mandatory stuff and made it optional, as well adding difficulty options is what has made the game easier to complete.
Also I very doubt they have to gouge people to fund the sequel. The first game did really, really well and the sequel was confirmed pretty much straight away.
EDIT: I forgot the point that he even noted that the feature can be used for free.
And you will most likely never see a post like this, because no one cares for the items since you get them for free. Buying them just gets you the items faster.
But...you get the same items for free over the time.
People are bitching in this thread over NOTHING. Bitch when it impacts the game in a negative way but bitching because the option is offered is stupid. They have not redesigned the game around this. They redesigned this version to lessen the grind and then added the option on top of it. An option everyone gets for FREE ANYWAY.
No it's not. We can compare to the original Japanese microtransactionless release.
That's because the improvement comes in the form of increased budget, which is intangible but has a very real effect.
Yeah, for putting your console into sleep mode for 8 hours, or 24 hours for 3 max uses. They should've made it so that they were restored in 8 RL hours without the sleep mode requirement, but I guess then no one who was remotely interested would think twice about buying them. The sleep mode design choice was made to make buying SP more appealing, so they couldn't go out of their way to make acquiring the items convenient for the player. This is an example of a game being negatively impacted to sell micro-transactions... and it's quite shoddy. I'd rather it not be in the game at all.
You have to have the console in sleepmode to build your village (which is the main source of armour/weapon/item upgrades).
I think we can all agree that for this particular game micro transactions will not make the game less enjoyable. However the concept of introducing this sort of business model into full priced games is shitty and has potential to screw gamers (see Forza). I think that is why many (including me) feel reluctant to get on board.
That said I will still buy day one because I'm weak and have waited too long for this.
That said I will still buy day one because I'm weak and have waited too long for this.
Well damn, now I'm going to have to buy SP since I will be so underpowered due to not putting my 3DS in sleep mode. You got me SE.
The wait x hours until x building is upgraded stinks F2P mobile game, the DLC (taken into account although not present in the demo), simplistic system (brave- double action, default - defend). It takes ok/bad parts from other games and doesn't really add anything new. In my opinion.
Eh, I'm just going to ignore it. It's annoying that they tacked it in, but I'm not going to let that stop me from enjoying the game.
Besides, the whole Micro-transaction thing is probably a dead-end phase anyway. So I'm not really concerned with, "sending a message," whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.
Besides, the whole Micro-transaction thing is probably a dead-end phase anyway. So I'm not really concerned with, "sending a message," whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.
Otakumegane
Member
I thought for the sequel could be beaten without Microtransactions.
Does the game keep pushing it in your face?
Does the game keep pushing it in your face?
You don't have to use them. It's more like an auto-win solution. Who the hell wants to use that and at the same time have a challenge? No one.
_______________________________
People need to chill out about this. It is worrying for the second game, but for this game, it seems like microtransactions "done right". Can't believe I wrote that, lol.
Intheflorsh
Banned
All the Bravely Default-est.
