[Megathread] Fallout 76

[Eleccybubb]

And that's why I'm unimpressed. It's only an issue if one company does it. And only if it happens recently.

Guess what? I tolerate it here. Yep, the price on paint is a piss take. I can also not spend a single cent and get it. As people who actually play this game bring up, the game vomits atoms at you. And since they aren't doing the two currency thing, you can actually get the bigger items.

But let me know how this is the worst.

Not saying that. I'm saying just stick to Bethesda for now.

They aren't helping their cause with the issues this game has brought by throwing out high cost cosmetic MTX.

Nor are they helping it by saying Power Armor edition owners have gotta wait upto half a year to get the bag that was supposed to be in the damn edition.

This whole game has been mismanaged to hell. And quite frankly it's shallow on the gameplay aspect too.

[Dextroden]

Not saying that. I'm saying just stick to Bethesda for now.

They aren't helping their cause with the issues this game has brought by throwing out high cost cosmetic MTX.

Nor are they helping it by saying Power Armor edition owners have gotta wait upto half a year to get the bag that was supposed to be in the damn edition.

This whole game has been mismanaged to hell. And quite frankly it's shallow on the gameplay aspect too.

There have been high costs paints in the shop since day one. Late to the party, bub.

Them being incompetent at physical editions is different from the game. They aren't amazing at this, but they are working on it like I expect a company that wants in on live services to do. And I'll never applaud them for doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Besides, it can't be that shallow if people who said they figured out the game is awful from watching streams are watching the price so they can buy said awful game.

[Eleccybubb]

There have been high costs paints in the shop since day one. Late to the party, bub.

Them being incompetent at physical editions is different from the game. They aren't amazing at this, but they are working on it like I expect a company that wants in on live services to do. And I'll never applaud them for doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Besides, it can't be that shallow if people who said they figured out the game is awful from watching streams are watching the price so they can buy said awful game.

If Bethesda pay me to take this then I'll take it.

Rather throw the £10 or w/e it's down to on an Indie game.

Also that just means people see it's true value.

Because it sure as shit isn't a £60 game.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ng-out-of-hand

1400 ATOMS FOR A SIGN. A FUCKING SIGN. Translated to £10 worth of atoms.

My god this just gets fucking better.

[Deleted]

The opinions of 1, 2 or 5 people in a thread like this don't really mean anything. If you look at the games from the lens of all those millions of shitty blog sites and blog articles that exist today, and all those millions of YouTubers who don't actually ever play games properly, but make tons of videos on them, and other such Roger Ebert -esque "professional critics" (basically just Yelp reviewers) who put their own opinion above that of others for absolutely no reason whatsoever - they have no education or experience in the field of making those things, they're just random consumers just like everyone else - then what you'll find is that people are surprisingly forgiving when it comes to stuff like MTX or DLC/expansion prices of games from companies that aren't being targeted by the masses, and as such it doesn't make sense to write articles or make videos lambasting those products, because then you draw the ire of the playerbase on you.

But, when you've got this easy target, Bethesda, with their buggy engine, and Todd who apparently loves to tell more "Sweet Little Lies" than other developers - which, of course, isn't at all true - then it's easy to rile up the people who read those blog sites and watch those videos, and what you get are easy clicks and easy ad revenue and easy Patreon money and so on. And what you get are tons and tons of repetitive blog articles and repetitive YouTube videos repeating the same talking points just like they do on Fox News, and then you've got the ignorant and semi-ignorant masses who don't actually have first hand experience but who love to read those blogs and watch those videos repeating those talking points on forums, Reddit, comments and the like.

The fact of the matter is, if you look at the actual Atom pricing, $4.99 for 500 Atoms, $9.99 for 1100 Atoms, $19.99 for 2400 Atoms, $39.99 for 5000 Atoms, look at how much items in the Atomic Shop actually cost - stuff like 600 Atoms for a costume, the Santa package (it's two costumes, two icons and a C.A.M.P. decoration) being a bigger package for 2000, and so on, you'll realize it's not really that much different. Sure, there are some missteps in the pricing there, and with "discounting" stuff that is up for a limited time, but instead of just pointing those out, let's just froth at the mouth and have a huge Bethesda hate boner in a circle.

Yet, even though a game like Fortnite rips you off just as much, and has what, over 200 million users, are we reading blog articles daily about the V-Buck pricing? Are people in the Fortnite thread on these forums crying about how Epic Games is the worst greedy company ever? Are we seeing a ton of YouTube videos about that issue from these YouTubers?

Well of course not. Because Fortnite is being played by over 200 million people, and it's all the rage now. You wouldn't get clicks by shitting on Fortnite (or Rockstar and RDR2, or Path of Exile, or Blizzard and WoW/Overwatch/Heroes), and that's what it's all about in the end anyway. Clicks. Clicks. Clicks.

[Makabreska]

snip

You are comparing a F2P game to premium priced AAA game (regardless of discounts). And you are right, the opinions of 1, 2 or 5 staunch defenders in a thread like this don't really mean anything. No amount of anger and salt will help now, F76 meme status has been well established. And regarding Bethesda being an "easy target"? Boo hooo! Poor multi billion dollars company, they only released an utterly lazy and broken game for some quick cash grab. We shoulnd't go too hard on them, right?

[Deleted]

https://www.reddit.com/r/fo76/commen...al_and_has_no/

So, apparently people have been trying to see if it actually works and exists, and it seems that the "trade exploit" or "steal exploit" or whatever people have been on about, where you can supposedly steal someone's gear through trading, isn't actually that at all. Apparently nobody can come up with actual proof that this has ever existed, and people are reporting themselves being ADHD instead, fumbling through the trade screen and thus doing a user error and losing the item that way, or that there's some glitch that puts an item into some kind of limbo until the next login, but that the item isn't actually lost at all.

Having said that, even if the whole "you can steal items in Fallout 76" is yet another bullshit lie spread by people who just love to hate on the game, if the trading screen is bad enough that people fumble through it, then it definitely needs some work to make it completely foolproof.

In the same vein, someone in that thread is also saying that there's also no proof that the PA pieces can be stolen from your frame when you're working on it, and that they've actually tried it, and it can't be done. Unless, of course, you drop the frame, in which case you give up ownership of it. Again, perhaps just to help the simpler people there should be a confirmation screen to dropping a frame just so nobody does it "by accident".

[Video Games]

Right. So. Let's assume they didn't make much money by selling the game. Your amazing business solution would be to what, make even less money by undercutting their MTX revenue as well? Then again, I'm not an expert in that, so if you say cheaper skins would bring in more revenue, fair enough. I'll have to take your word on it.

However, you do also realize though that the Santa skin doesn't necessarily cost $20, right? If you'd buy, for example, the $19.99 Atom package of 2000 Atoms, you'd get 400 extra. You get 5000 for $40. However, the point is, you can have 2000 Atoms in game right now, without buying a single Atom more. You want the Santa suit for $10? No problem, buy the $9.99 package for 1000+100 (1100) Atoms, and spend those 900 Atoms you've collected. There you go, a $10 skin.

Now, if it was even cheaper than that, let's say 1000 Atoms... Well, people already have that. So, nobody would buy more Atoms with cash, when they could just buy it with the in-game earned ones. Not much revenue for Bethesda there.

So, bad revenue from sales, bad revenue from MTX sales, and would people still expect them to keep developing? Oh well, of course not, because these are probably the same people who haven't played the game and are frothing at the mouth yelling for the game to die. For what reason, I have no idea, since it's not going to help them one way or the other whether the game exists or not. Unless there's some completely twisted logic there, thinking that if Fallout 76 fails, Bethesda and Zenimax are just going to go to Obsidian and hand over the Fallout IP as a Christmas gift. Hahaha!

I would make a good game like gow with no mtx. As easy as that. And i dont want the studio to die, just the greed beyond greed.

[Skorpionss]

That...legitimately makes me wonder why on earth they even moved forward with this project. I'm struggling to understand the logic in the slightest when such core functionality for an online game is apparently literally technically impossible. I get that there are workarounds for it to a certain extent and that by limiting the number of players in each instance it cuts down on the chance for issues to arise, but it just speaks to the fact that the engine was fundamentally not designed to support a game like this and makes all the other technical oddities so much more understandable.

At least beyond the usual Bethesda Quality(tm).

To test the online capabilities of the engine for future projects, what else? And ofc squeeze out some more of that $$

[Endus]

This is true, but you know these microtransactions that are infesting the current era of gaming right now? They had a tepid "feeling out" period too. Don't support this idea at all.

Microtransactions are spreading out into games for two very simple reasons;

1> Customers really like them, for the most part. They attract players, by offering a much wider variety of cosmetic options (for example).
2> Companies really like them, because it's an additional revenue stream, and an ongoing one that will continue to produce revenue over the life of the game.

While you might not like them, that really doesn't matter. What matters is how the market responds to microtransactions. And the market has been overwhelmingly in favor of them, with the small caveat that it's only really supportive when they're cosmetic; selling pay-to-win stuff will get a game slammed (see Battlefront 2's shenanigans).

If the consumer market hated microtransactions, then games including them wouldn't sell well, and the microtransactions wouldn't get bought, and game companies would abandon it as a bad idea that lowers profits. And that's blatantly not what's happened. There's been widespread acceptance by that consumer base, and an increase in revenues.

Secondly, I do agree with you about the discount. It makes no sense when the item has not been up for sale before, and it's a limited time item.

Beyond the point you make, I'm pretty sure that Bethesda has a standardized pricing system in the Atom shop. So they priced each component of the Santa package, added it up, and then "discounted" it to the current price. It still feels a little weird, but I think that's the rationale.

[Dextroden]

If Bethesda pay me to take this then I'll take it.

Rather throw the £10 or w/e it's down to on an Indie game.

Also that just means people see it's true value.

Because it sure as shit isn't a £60 game.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ng-out-of-hand

1400 ATOMS FOR A SIGN. A FUCKING SIGN. Translated to £10 worth of atoms.

My god this just gets fucking better.

It does. You guys are trolling the shop for things to be mad about.

And I wouldn't even take a game I think is shit. I actually have tastes.

[dlld]

Same here, I have like 3000 atoms, but I'm keeping them for something that actually looks good. I'm only level 35, so god knows how many atoms people have who are level 100+.

I don't remember my exact level but its 98 or something, I have around 3000 atoms, not purchased a thing. After you finished the mainquest the automatic easy atom train kinda stops and you would have to actually try and hunt them down.

[Deleted]

Just to break down Atoms a bit more since they seem to be of a lot of interest to people, here are some facts:

$4.99 to buy 500 Atoms,
$9.99 to buy 1000+100 Atoms,
$19.99 to buy 2000+400 Atoms,
$39.99 to buy 4000+1000 Atoms.

With that, rounding the cents up, you get a range of 100-125 Atoms per $1, depending on which package you buy. Or, in other words, 1 Atom is worth 0.8-1 cents.

Right now, I've got 5 daily challenges worth 60 Atoms, and 5 weekly challenges, worth 150 Atoms. Daily challenges are worth 10-20 Atoms, whereas weekly challenges are worth 20-40 Atoms. I'm not sure if those are the actual ranges; there might be weekly challenges worth 50 Atoms. I've also seen less than 5 challenges for a day, and I think I've seen 6 challenges for a week.

However, if we'd say 5 challenges both daily and weekly, with an average of 15 Atoms per daily ((10+20)/2=15), and an average of 30 Atoms per weekly ((20+30+40)/3=30), then we'd be looking an average of 75 Atoms per day (less today though), and 150 Atoms per week (as it is this week.) For a grand total of 675 Atoms per week.

That's 60-75 cents earned per day, $4.20-5.25 per week from daily challenges, with an extra $1.20-1.50 from the weekly challenges. That'd be a total of $5.40-6.75 earned per week.

The cheapest apparel for sale are 300 Atoms ($2.40-3.00), with some at 500 Atoms ($4-5) to 700 Atoms ($5.60-7.00), quite a few at 800 Atoms ($6.40-8.00), and a couple more expensive ones at 1000 Atoms ($8-10), 1200 Atoms ($9.60-12.00) and 1400 Atoms ($11.20-14.00).

Icons are mostly 50 Atoms ($0.40-0.50), with a few at 150 Atoms ($1.20-1.50), and one at 250 Atoms ($2.00-$2.50).

C.A.M.P. decorations range from 300 Atoms ($2.40-3.00) to 700 Atoms ($5.60-7.00), with one decoration (the Red Rocket tower, which I believe is pretty large) costing 1400 Atoms ($11.20-14.00).

The Santa package (I'm a Santa worshipper ,\../) includes two separate apparel (apparel prices range, as said, from $2.40-3.00 to $11.20-$14.00), two icons (mostly $0.40-0.50 with a few $1.20-150 and one $2.00-2.50) and one C.A.M.P. decoration (from $2.40-3.00 to $5.60-7.00 with that one exception at $11.20-14.00), and it costs 2000 Atoms, which are, as should be apparent by now, worth $16-20.

If you'd price the Santa package contents in the most unreasonable way possible, you'd probably say that the two separate apparel are "just the one Santa suit", so you wouldn't even count two as two, and you'd probably then even price it based on the lowest possible comparison in the shop. And, of course, do the same for the two icons and the C.A.M.P. decoration. In which case, the package would break down like this:

$2.40-3.00 for "Santa skin"
$0.40-0.50 for icon
$0.40-0.50 for icon
$2.40-3.00 for C.A.M.P. decoration (it's a two-headed reindeer, by the way.)

In which case, the value you'd see for the package would be $5.60-7.00, for the price of $20.

If you'd say that being that the Santa apparel are probably supposed to be as rare as the most expensive apparel in the shop, and you'd be reasonable and count the two apparel as separate ones, and maybe say that the icons are a bit rarer than the regular icons, and that the reindeer is at least as expensive as the more expensive regular stuff, then you'd break the package down like this:

$11.20-14.00 for Mr. Claus
$11.20-14.00 for Mrs. Claus
$1.20-1.50 for icon
$1.20-1.50 for icon
$5.60-7.00 for Rudolph the two-nosed reindeer

In this case, the value for the package would be $30.40-38.00. Good value (in the sense of comparing to the other prices in the Atom shop, obviously) for that $20. Or $16, if you buy the biggest Atom package.

Then again, if you'd go a bit more reasonable route and pick the middle ground, you'd probably look at it something like this:

$6.40-8.00 for Mr. Claus
$6.40-8.00 for Mrs. Claus
$1.20-1.50 for icon
$1.20-1.50 for icon
$5.60-7.00 for Rudolph

For a total of $20.80-26.00 for the package, for 2000 Atoms, valued at $16-20.

In any case, all of that is ignoring the fact that you can earn $5.40-6.75 per week in the game (although, I mean, you do, God forbid, have to actually play it in order for that to happen!), and it's also putting aside the fact that perhaps the Christmas-related stuff have a bit higher of a cost for a reason. But, however you look at it, this was a bit of a breakdown of the Atom prices for those people on these forums, who don't play the game, and don't thus necessarily have a direct line to actual data. I'm sure, despite there being two pieces of apparel, two icons and a C.A.M.P. decoration, people will still keep calling it a "$20 skin", but hey, nothing beats ignorance of the facts.

PS: Please feel free to scour through my math and point out any mistakes. I'm sure I made some.

[Endus]

LOL... no, people don't "like" to have to pay for extra shit, they tolerate it because in most games is a necessary evil to have dedicated servers and constant content updates, it all boils down how you implement them, adding them to single players games, selling shit that gives players advantage over others, RNG systems, overpriced crap and what not always gets their fair share of shit, I don’t even know why some people here are pushing forward with this ridiculous idea that “you only care when it’s Bethesda”, it’s just fucking dumb.

You're projecting your own opinion onto the population at large, and ignoring that microtransactions have been wildly successful as a revenue stream. That doesn't happen if the consumer base hates it.

I'm not saying you're wrong to dislike them. I'm saying you're in the clear minority.

[Deleted]

As for people having a raging hate boner towards cosmetic MTX, I wonder how they think ongoing development and servers should be funded. All of the costs should be taken from the sales profits? Wonder how that works when there's no timetable on how long said servers and said development should go on. Or, should the game have a subscription model? Is that better?

But, then again, the answer is, of course, that there should be no ongoing development of the game, because "games as a service are bad!" I guess. There should be no online games which provide servers and ongoing development, I guess. None. Just single player games where development ends after the 1-2 bug fixing patches.

Wonder how much of the development costs of RDR2 were covered by selling shark cards in GTA:O.

[lollermittens]

You're projecting your own opinion onto the population at large, and ignoring that microtransactions have been wildly successful as a revenue stream. That doesn't happen if the consumer base hates it.

I'm not saying you're wrong to dislike them. I'm saying you're in the clear minority.

Yeah, let's just ignore the massive amount of evidence which demonstrates that 10%-15% of players make up over 80% of the revenue for MTx in most games.

It's still a lot of people spending a huge amount of money who are fucking it up for everyone else since they're sending the message that they want this kind of garbage in their games.

If you support MTx, you're overtly responsible for the degradation of quality in games. Shame on those who support this sick, predatory practice.

- - - Updated - - -

As for people having a raging hate boner towards cosmetic MTX, I wonder how they think ongoing development and servers should be funded. All of the costs should be taken from the sales profits? Wonder how that works when there's no timetable on how long said servers and said development should go on. Or, should the game have a subscription model? Is that better?

But, then again, the answer is, of course, that there should be no ongoing development of the game, because "games as a service are bad!" I guess. There should be no online games which provide servers and ongoing development, I guess. None. Just single player games where development ends after the 1-2 bug fixing patches.

Wonder how much of the development costs of RDR2 were covered by selling shark cards in GTA:O.

Typical ignorant tripe posited by those who are still under the impressions that game development is so expensive, a constant necessary revenue stream must be created to support salaries and costs assocaited with hardware.

MTx have nothing to do with this. We have plenty of blockbuster games (modern and old) who have proven you can support a game's online SDLC as well as provide intermittent content without having to use MTx (Diablo 3 is an example; Witcher 3 is another one).

MTx are created to meet the financial goals you present to the Board of Directors who then release said financial goals to their shareholders. That's it.

This argument would make sense if the revenue created by MTx would in turn provide increases in salaries from developers to QA/ QC folks but that's not the case. Salaries for game devs are still below market compared to enterprise software devs; QA/ QC folks still struggle to make ends-meet; same for the rest of the folks in different department.

This is about corporate greed and it has infected an art form to the point of no return.

And the worst thing about MTx? Consumers defending this shit. That's truly what upsets me the most.

[Makabreska]

You're projecting your own opinion onto the population at large, and ignoring that microtransactions have been wildly successful as a revenue stream. That doesn't happen if the consumer base hates it.

I'm not saying you're wrong to dislike them. I'm saying you're in the clear minority.

And that's becasue of a small playerbase called "whales", that is willing to spend lots of money on them. They are the main source of income. Microtransactions are NOT generally liked.

[Dextroden]

You should stop forcibly interpreting shit in such a ridiculous way for the sake of convenience, if you can’t argue against what people are actually saying just don’t, I don’t think anyone here is shitting on Bethesda or any other company for just selling cosmetics.

Except the people coming in here to shit about the store.

These crusaders seemed to be absent when the game launched and those paints were already there. How strange.

[Endus]

Yeah, let's just ignore the massive amount of evidence which demonstrates that 10%-15% of players make up over 80% of the revenue for MTx in most games.

1> I'm not "ignoring" that.
2> That isn't even relevant.

It's still a lot of people spending a huge amount of money who are fucking it up for everyone else since they're sending the message that they want this kind of garbage in their games.

Microtransactions don't affect you negatively. Don't like 'em? Just don't buy 'em. The ONLY case I see for arguing against them is if they provide an insurmountable or vastly easier path to power in a game; pay-to-win mechanics. If they're cosmetics or "pay to go faster" type stuff, why would anyone care? Don't want to pay for them? Just, like, don't. Nothing is forcing you. That's the point of microtransactions; they're a la carte.

If you support MTx, you're overtly responsible for the degradation of quality in games. Shame on those who support this sick, predatory practice.

Complete and utter horseshit. You're confusing your subjective preferences for objective truth, again. All you're saying here is that you don't like them, and think the entire gaming industry should be restructured around you, not what any other consumers might want.

And that's becasue of a small playerbase called "whales", that is willing to spend lots of money on them. They are the main source of income. Microtransactions are NOT generally liked.

Citation needed.

I've already pointed at the sales volume of games using MtX systems as evidence otherwise.

[Eleccybubb]

Except the people coming in here to shit about the store.

These crusaders seemed to be absent when the game launched and those paints were already there. How strange.

Well don't have a stupidly priced store in a trash game that's already caused a shitstorm and it wouldn't be an issue?

[Krastyn]

Yeah, let's just ignore the massive amount of evidence which demonstrates that 10%-15% of players make up over 80% of the revenue for MTx in most games.

That if anything is actually an argument FOR micro transactions, not against. 85-90% of the player base are getting their game subsidized by the other 10-15%.

If you support MTx, you're overtly responsible for the degradation of quality in games. Shame on those who support this sick, predatory practice.

There is literally zero evidence between micro transactions and the quality of the game. That's just your subjective opinion.

Typical ignorant tripe posited by those who are still under the impressions that game development is so expensive, a constant necessary revenue stream must be created to support salaries and costs assocaited with hardware.

So game companies should pay their employees in pixie dust and happy thoughts?

MTx have nothing to do with this. We have plenty of blockbuster games (modern and old) who have proven you can support a game's online SDLC as well as provide intermittent content without having to use MTx (Diablo 3 is an example; Witcher 3 is another one).

Diablo 3 has micro transactions, just not in Europe or the Americas.

There are also plenty of blockbuster games (modern and old) that have MTX, aren't a problem, and are good games.

This argument would make sense if the revenue created by MTx would in turn provide increases in salaries from developers to QA/ QC folks but that's not the case. Salaries for game devs are still below market compared to enterprise software devs; QA/ QC folks still struggle to make ends-meet; same for the rest of the folks in different department.

Or there is the pesky fact that the price of a video game has basically been $60 USD since the 1990's. It's why previous to MTX being the whipping boy, paid DLC was.

I barely ever PvP, be it Fallout, Diablo, or WoW. So if they have cosmetic MTX or even P2W MTX (like WoW does), I am 100% on board because it means I'm not paying more to play my game. It doesn't hurt my game experience.