tudhalyas: Monetization has been used to indicate a
very specific way of making money, which is DLC and microtransactions. I am OK with DLCs as long as they're meaningful and worth the price tag (see TW3), but I'm not with microtransactions of any kind.
Well, not to quibble, but I think it's weird to say that "monetization is very specific" and then point out that it covers everything from DLC to microtransactions. You're also forgetting options like advertisements, everything from irritating pop-ups to product placement (sure, put Nu-Coke in the game as something you can get from a vending machine. I'm fine with that). That's also a form of monetization.
For that matter, I don't agree that all microtransactions are bad. I have no problem paying a couple of bucks for some cosmetic options or a new character I can play as, for example, or the where the line between expansion and microtransactions get blurry (like $2 DLC), or things like soundtracks.
For me, the big no-nos in the MtX world, in descending order of evil, are:
- Lootboxes or gambling mechanics of any kind
- "Pay to win" mechanics
- "XP boosters" or other mechanics designed to "speed up the game," as it encourages the creators to turn their game into a grind-fest to encourage spending.
- Pop-up ads (just because they're super annoying and off-putting)
These tend to have toxic effects on the game design, creating bad games to encourage spending, or encouraging really destructive behavior from players.
But we also don't know what they intend. What they said was something like "We need to think about our monetization strategy," which does not immediately translate into "pay-to-win lootboxes."
tudhalyas: Big difference here: CP2077 is a 60 euros paid title whereas Warframe (which I play, and for which I've also spent money for) is a F2P game where ALL gameplay content is and will be free forever. This is the only case where I am OK with microtransactions, as it's the ONE way through which the devs make money to stay afloat.
To sum it up:
you either make me pay for the game upfront and nothing else, or you give me free access to the base game and make me pay for extras if/when I decide that I want them. The monetization discussion regards the multiplayer side of CP2077, not the single player CP2077. It's two entirely different things. Perhaps the intent of the multiplayer is to make it free and then support it with some form of monetization.
Look, I get your concerns, but most of this discussion has been between those who saw the word "monetization" and then assumed we were talking about pay-to-win lootboxes in the single player CP2077 in blatant contradiction of their previous promises not to do that, when what was
actually said was (if I may paraphrase) "When it comes to the multi-player aspect, which is a separate game designed by a separate team, of which we've basically said nothing, we need to think carefully about what monetization strategy we use, and we need to make sure it's got good value for money." I think if CDPR releases some free-to-play multiplayer version of CP2077 with good "value for money" monetization (like, for example, Warframe), I think all of these objections disappear, no?
tudhalyas: I've seen this pattern repeating itself way too many times to be unconcerned this time around, even if it is CDPR we're talking about. Again, this doesn't mean that I won't buy the game, it just means that I won't buy it before release or at day one.
Sure, be concerned. Watch this space. Don't pre-order a game you aren't sure about. I've pre-ordered it, but that's because I got the Witcher games for a song and I felt like I was cheating them a little in doing so, so I had resolved to just give them my money for CP2077 sight unseen as a reward for them. I know that if you pre-order, you're buying a pig in a poke. If you don't want to do that, don't. I generally stand against pre-orders, not just for things like this, but even without microtransactions, CP2077 might turn out to be a real turkey or a bug-filled mess.
What I'm advocating against is attacking CDPR based on a single line in a single article that's being taken out of context and blown up. This very thread is full of screeds and rants. I understand where the passion comes from, but I think it's a mistake to treat CDPR like they're making Fallout 76 or Anthem before we know the facts. What we tell CDPR with this behavior is "If we even hear a rumor of monetization we don't like, we'll abandon you." If all of us pro-consumer advocates are so flighty, how does it benefit CDPR to cater to us?
Wait until we get concrete details on the monetization and
then fly off the handle if they turn out to be bad. Don't punish them for things we don't know they've actually done yet.