• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Kotaku: NBA 2K18 is Riddled with Microtransactions

Its all COSMETIC or Not? If so, I dont Care.

Coming to a future near you, character creators where you have to pay to unlock a skin colours, eyebrows, height adjustments, hairstyles, eye colour, facial hair, genitalia size and whatever other slider that's currently free. It's just cosmetic right, who cares.
 
We as gamers have been lapping up microtransactions since day 1.
Don't be surprised that 2K has the gall to make them worse every year.

It's just getting started too.
 

Audioboxer

Member
When they churn these games out year on year and ask $60 every 12 months this is completely unacceptable.

Jim Sterling read this post and heed the call.

*Sterling light lit*
 
M

Macapala

Unconfirmed Member
But guys, the developers are doing us a favour. By making us grind for ridiculous amounts of time we are getting more bang for our buck. I support this and think it should be in every game.
 
The crazy part is... the people that I know that bought consoles for basically this game, FIFA, and Call of Duty only don't have any issues with this and actually pay a ton of money into these games every year.

It's crazy.
 
I'm enjoying the game a lot, but I noticed this as well. The most frustrating part, to me at least, is that it's both attribute improvements to your player and additional gear/player moves/pre-game stuff, etc. Literally everything is locked behind VC (which is just XP). I usually do MyLeague not MYGM so I don't know how bad that mode is.

It is still possible to level up your player from playing the games and doing drills. I don't really care for online play, so it hasn't impacted me too much. I just maximize the number of drills I do and increased the minutes of each game. I got from 60 to 65 after about 10 games.
 

thumb

Banned
You know, this whole "It's just cosmetic" bullshit is going to get hilariously progressively worse like how bungie changed how shaders, then we're all going to look back and laugh at how it all started.

Indeed. Also, I like how this game's virtual currency is literally called "virtual currency". They just don't care anymore.
 
The crazy part is... the people that I know that bought consoles for basically this game, FIFA, and Call of Duty only don't have any issues with this and actually pay a ton of money into these games every year.

It's crazy.

Those are the types of games casuals only play for the year.
So they are wiling to dump $200+ into microtransactions whereas the more hardcore would spread that out buying several games over a year.

Casuals are the critical mass whale so this fight is basically lost.
 

J-Skee

Member
The last 2K game I actually sunk time into was NBA 2K11. I loved the Jordan mode & none of that VC stuff existed. We're now at a point where people try to scam others for VC, just like with FIFA. I'd heard too many horror stories about how people were charged up to $50 for currency for those games, where most of the time they didn't even play them.

It sucks because I was actually looking forward to playing 2K18, with the off-season being as crazy as it was & also wanted to compare NBA Live 18 to it to see if it indeed improved. I'll hold off my purchase for now.

Shameful. 2K11 was their last great game imo. Everything after that has been pretty bad.

And it was a legitimate GOTY contender.
 

IISANDERII

Member
So basically you pay to avoid grinding. Paying to play less.

Maybe I can pay $250 and not even have to touch the controller 🎮 or even turn on my television 📺.

Make that a feature in 2019
 

JWiLL

Banned
This used to be an amazing series that constantly innovated gameplay wise and had great features like online ranked leaderboards, chat lobbies and online leagues.

That was in 2k7-2k8...

The series probably peaked with 2k11.

I used to be a "2k diehard" but I haven't even bought the last 2 games now. No interest in "MyPark" or "MyPlayer" or any of that shit, just wanted to play full featured online fantasy league sim style ball. Draft night was always a great fucking time.

2k is the greediest company on the market by a fair margin. Tough to get upset at Bungie or Blizz for their optional cosmetic lootboxes when this garbage exists. In 2k16 there was a button on the Online Ranked screen that literally said "Buy Wins". The fuck!?
 

clo1_2000

Banned
After I realized how much I spent last year in addition to the retail price for the game, I vowed to not make that mistake again. I understand it was my decision to buy the VC so I could get my character to a playable state more quickly, but after I thought about it, that is exactly what "free-to-play" models employ. (I should know, I worked at Wargaming[World of Tanks/Planes/Warships]).

I also came to understand that my purchase was validating the market for 2K. So, this year, for the first time since 2K came out, I have made the decision to skip my usual NBA2k purchase.

I have a love/hate relationship with Kotaku, but I'm glad to see them calling this out. 2K is purposely giving people an inferior product (while charging full retail price) and then charging them to make it more playable. I understand that DLC does this in some fashion, but I don't feel it is to the same degree as what we are seeing with NBA2K.
 
Haven't the NBA 2k games been rotten like this for a while? Always online BS with shitty servers and microtransactions. I thought it was just ignored because it's the only decent basketball game now just like Madden. I haven't played one I just remember seeing a lot of articles about it every year.
 

KingT

Neo Member
This will be the first nba2k that I won't buy since nba2k13. I am really worn out with the VC currency.
 

qcf x2

Member
I stopped buying NBA 2k after like 11. And that was before these shenanigans. I used to enjoy the series because Visual concepts kind of felt like the anti-EA, the scrappy underdog focused on making the product itself unique and consumer friendly. And they were always trying new things, taking and acting upon community feedback, focusing on gameplay first, etc. Then they buried NBA Live and basically turned into a worse EA Sports, something I naively didn't foresee at all.

The gameplay of the series sucks imo. Not relative to another game because you really don't have options. But long, canned animations in 2017? Fuck. We should be so far beyond these basic function-based engines (key word here being basic). You have to really work hard to make any of it flow like basketball at all. Even the (graphics) engine is dusty af compared to what other genres are doing.

But why innovate at all when you have guaranteed millions coming in no matter what? And when you can actively squeeze even more (pure greed btw, no 2 ways about it) out of the loyal consumers?

I'm hoping some amateur devs put out a modern basketball (sim) game. We are capable of so much better than this.
 
I bought the game, but then experienced first hand that you had to spend almost 200k in VC just to get your character to not suck at all and I’ve just stuck with playing MyLeague stuff. I won’t be picking it up next year.
 
So was NBA 2K17. So was NBA 2K16. So was NBA 2K15. 14 was the last time it wasn't absolutely ridiculous.

It'll never change unless EA gets its shit together and really delivers a game that isn't just around 2K level but legitimately better.
 

Crazyorloco

Member
EGM reviewed the game and gave it a 6.5, which I think is too low but they made a great point:

"Maybe NBA 2K18 has been the king of the court for too long and now it’s getting bored. Instead of improving gameplay, it’s figuring out more ways to make money through MyCareer and MyTeam."

I'm glad they just updated the game and now the haircuts now cost 100 VC. You won't have to play two games to get a haircut now.
 
Jason Schreier, Kotaku, writes a book, in part, about why AAA games cost so much to make.

Kotaku then follows up with articles criticising microtransactions as way to recoup the high investment required to make AAA games.

Meanwhile, the $60 price for a AAA game, in inflationary terms, is the lowest price point in the history of AAA gaming.
 
Jason Schreier, Kotaku, writes a book, in part, about why AAA games cost so much to make.

Kotaku then follows up with articles criticising microtransactions as way to recoup the high investment required to make AAA games.

Meanwhile, the $60 price for a AAA game, in inflationary terms, is the lowest price point in the history of AAA gaming.

Yearly sports games are different, they are basically just $60 roster updates. and will change small things every year. Most of the time you could buy them once every 3 years and there will be a decent chunk that has been untouched in that time.
 

jdmonmou

Member
Jason Schreier, Kotaku, writes a book, in part, about why AAA games cost so much to make.

Kotaku then follows up with articles criticising microtransactions as way to recoup the high investment required to make AAA games.

Meanwhile, the $60 price for a AAA game, in inflationary terms, is the lowest price point in the history of AAA gaming.
Microtransactions aren't a good way to recoup costs when it hurts the overall quality of the product. It just turns people off to the product entirely hurting sales overall.
 
Yearly sports games are different, they are basically just $60 roster updates. and will change small things every year. Most of the time you could buy them once every 3 years and there will be a decent chunk that has been untouched in that time.

They also require a license from the league and/or the players union to represent the teams and players unlike most other games that are not licensed.
 

thumb

Banned
Jason Schreier, Kotaku, writes a book, in part, about why AAA games cost so much to make.

Kotaku then follows up with articles criticising microtransactions as way to recoup the high investment required to make AAA games.

Meanwhile, the $60 price for a AAA game, in inflationary terms, is the lowest price point in the history of AAA gaming.

Then these companies should start charging more for their product, rather than looking for ways to exploit player psychology into paying more after the fact. The mere reality that games are cheap relative to inflation does not justify any and all attempts to further monetize.
 
Ive been playing NBA 2K for a long time now, and the moment after i completed the intro for mycareer and it dumped me into "The Neighborhood", it took me 2 minutes before i realized i was never going to play mycareer this year. Im strictly playing MyGM now. The VC bullshit is incredibly offputting, it makes me not want to play mycareer at all. Bring back Michael B Jordan :'(
 
Microtransactions aren't a good way to recoup costs when it hurts the overall quality of the product. It just turns people off to the product entirely hurting sales overall.

I don't think sales data (both MT and game sales) supports your personal opinion as being the majority opinion.
 

Gxgear

Member
And here I was waiting a better model than yearly iterations that would get me to try any sports games. Guess it was just a pipe dream.
 
Jason Schreier, Kotaku, writes a book, in part, about why AAA games cost so much to make.

Kotaku then follows up with articles criticising microtransactions as way to recoup the high investment required to make AAA games.

Meanwhile, the $60 price for a AAA game, in inflationary terms, is the lowest price point in the history of AAA gaming.

The game has an £140/$150 version for god's sake. This is just greed. It's going to sell gangbusters, as most fee-to-pay games do, because as Jim Sterling rightfully points out, these most popular of games are pretty much the only ones that do it, because they know they can and can get away with it, not because they *need* to and the game will be a failure without them.
 
Then these companies should start charging more for their product, rather than looking for ways to exploit player psychology into paying more after the fact. The mere reality that games are cheap relative to inflation does not justify any and all attempts to further monetize.

They do not need or require justification. They are charging more for some aspects of their product through MT's. You'd prefer they increase the cost to purchase the game. For some consumers that aren't interested in whatever gating lies beyond the MT's, your monetization model would punish them.
 
The game has an £140/$150 version for god's sake. This is just greed. It's going to sell gangbusters, as most fee-to-pay games do, because as Jim Sterling rightfully points out, these most popular of games are pretty much the only ones that do it, because they know they can and can get away with it, not because they *need* to and the game will be a failure without them.

It's a licensed product. The $10 beer at the Arena is greed too, but because that arena is the only place I can watch LeBron James play in person, and that experience is worthwhile for me, then I will pay it. As the game makes more money, presumably the NBA and NBPA make more money. Why shouldn't those NBA players and teams maximize revenue on a product that trades on their likeness.
 
Top Bottom