•

Tekken 8 players divided as devs add “Tekken Shop” with microtransactions

Tekken 8 players divided as devs add “Tekken Shop” with microtransactions - Dexerto

https://www.dexerto.com/tekken/tekken-8-players-divided-as-devs-add-tekken-shop-with-microtransactions-2538110/

Tekken 8's devs have confirmed the arrival of a "Tekken Shop" that will contain in-game purchases, leaving players divided.

Tekken 8 players divided as devs add “Tekken Shop” with microtransactions - Dexerto

I guess this is probably going to be the new shitty norm with bait and switch for reviews then nickel and dime afterwards.

66 comments

B0NK3RS

•

Adding micro transactions after release is bullshit. There should be rules where it needs to be in from release or not.

Bonesince1997

•

Right. Some people wouldn't bother with a game at all if they knew there would be this. It's very deceptive.

snooggums

•

Knowing they were charging for new characters was almost a dealbreaker for me. This would have stopped me if I had known.

Cort

•

Paying extra for characters IS a deal breaker for me in fighting games. It's literally pay to win.

That said, I've been playing Tekken since ps1, so I'll probably just pirate this whenever it's available.

Chozo

•

Some people wouldn’t bother with a game at all if they knew there would be this.

Perhaps if this was unusual for the genre. But it's a AAA fighting game. Anybody who is familiar with the genre knows that MTX is normal and expected, because it's going to have several years of support from the developers. I'd have a hard time believing that any Tekken fan bought this on the premise of it remaining MTX-free.

Jomega

•

Something being normalized doesn't automatically make it morally okay.

Chozo

•

Doesn't it, though? This is what the players wanted, and the industry listened. They asked for support for the game after its release, and the industry said "Sure, but in exchange at least some of you should pay extra".

This isn't forced upon anybody. Just because Mazaratis exist doesn't mean that you have to buy one if you want a car. It only becomes a moral problem if somebody's choices are circumvented, but that's not really what's happening here.

Jomega

•

Doesn't it, though?

It used to normal to beat your kids. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

This is what the players wanted, and the industry listened.

The reason we are having this conversation in the first place is because people didn't want it.

This isn't forced upon anybody.

They added it the game post-launch, after reviews had already come out. Anyone morally opposed to micro transactions (which as I'll get to in next point, have a very good reason to be opposed to on principle) who had bought the game has been tricked into supporting a business practice they despise. This is incredibly scummy and should rightfully be seen as a dick move.

It only becomes a moral problem if somebody's choices are circumvented, but that's not really what's happening here.

Micro transactions as a concept are strategically designed to exploit people with addictive personalities. This is not a theory on my part, this is legitimately what the intent behind them is. But don't take my word for it, here's a video discussing that very thing.

yamanii

•

There's a pretty big difference between new gameplay (characters) and cosmetics that were clearly removed to be sold.

caut_R

•

Wait until the reviews are out so people can‘t be warned, and the product can’t be dunked on and then…

GenderNeutralBro

•

Exactly. If they'd announced this before launch, it would've been the only thing anyone talked about. There would have been a huge backlash and I'm sure a good percentage of the community would've dumped the series there and then.

This is doubly scummy. Glad I didn't buy it yet.

Chozo

•

If they’d announced this before launch, it would’ve been the only thing anyone talked about.

Not really. It'd hardly have been mentioned, at all. MTX are a part of every major fighting game, so it's hardly a newsworthy tidbit. They're completely expected in this genre. Any major competitive game that gets developer support after release is going to be funded either by microtransactions or subscriptions. The people who actually play these games know this.

okamiueru

•

If they place something behind MTs, then I completely agree. But, if they want to add more cosmetics that don't exist yet, and they finance it MTs, and at a fair price, it's less unethical.

Announcing it after reviews... Hm. Sketchy at best.

Ilflish

•

If you tried the customisation, it feels extremely bare bones in comparison to Tekken 7. So I wouldn't be surprised if stuff was removed to add to the Store.

mlg

•

TF2?

but tbf that basically invented the lootbox which then made TF2 free to play

TwilightVulpine

•

At least they made it free to play. These games are still charging full price plus microtransactions

Soggy

•

TF2 was a better experience before it went free-to-play. I want a barrier that keeps the hordes of clueless children out.

B0NK3RS

•

TF2 before F2P was one of, if not the, best multiplayer games. It just wasn't the same after that and good community servers died out.

red

•

Adding shit to a game with a patch, post purchase, doesn't require you to partake. While I hate MTX as much as anyone, you aren't required to buy anything. Sure, this is enshittification, but you can avoid that buy buying games that aren't "always online".

verysoft

•

Just another lesson to wait months after a games release before even considering it.

Vampiric_Luma

•

Early access paranoia can finally be shared by all~ Yippeeeeeeee

SomethingBurger

•

I don't buy games until the publisher announces it will be delisted.

JoeKrogan

•

Review Bomb it on steam

DoucheBagMcSwag

•

Fuckers waited until the high praise reviews were in

SomethingBurger

•

Gaming publications should automatically retroactively set their score to 0 in this case.

Stovetop

•

On the one hand I agree, it was obviously a calculated move to bait sales before microtransactions were added, which is incredibly scummy. But on the other hand, if a game reviewer gave it a certain score before microtransactions were added and nothing was altered/removed from the experience that was originally reviewed, I guess I don't see the problem with the score they assigned at the time (assuming it was reviewed in good faith).

You can install it out of the box and disable game updates and not see any microtransactions, which will let you play it exactly as it was when it was first reviewed. You won't get to do any online play, but I guess the bigger takeaway in that case is that any game which relies on online/live service elements for continued engagement needs to have a big fucking "CAVEAT EMPTOR" on every review.

DacoTaco

•

To be fair, most games these days have build in update checking, and more and more multiplayer games are always-online-or-piss-off type of games which shoot down your idea. I wish it was still possible in all games, but alas...

Stovetop

•

Right, but what I was getting at with how prone to change online experiences inherently are, it seems odd to rely on reviews to begin with. Sure I suppose it is irresponsible for a publication to make claims about the quality of an online experience, knowing that there is no guarantee of consistency over time, but the customer also shouldn't approach any online/live service experience with an expectation of consistency, because change is inherent to the model. Enjoy it while it lasts if it is fun, but again, caveat emptor.

The feeling of betrayal people have about online experiences is thankfully leading to pushback against live service models in general. Too many companies out there doing bait and switch bullshit.

If a game like Tekken happens to have a solid campaign and fun local multiplayer, I would be okay with leaving a good review up, because that is pretty much all that would have been reviewed ahead of time before there were other players to do online modes with. If a publication has a specific "no microtransactions" criteria, though, then I suppose they can do whatever they like afterwards. But anyone should be able to still obtain the day 1 version of the game and play it offline if you don't like the direction they went with its updates. You might just need to be more creative on PC to find them.

hatsa122

•

Divided? One must be pretty naive if they can't see the move they are trying to pull here.

Can't wait for f2p Project L to break into the genre and become the biggest and most popular fighting game.

inclementimmigrant

•

I mean you've got people who are defending Bilzzard's newest horse armor bullshit so yeah.

ETA: Yup, got quite a few Hardcore Gamers^TM in the thread defending this BS already with 'it's just cosmetics', all fighting games do it, or won't someone think of the devs, like like they think the developers are getting a cut off the money.

Just sad frogs sitting in the boiling water.

caut_R

•

Yeah, you can find vocal people who will play the apologist for just about anything, it‘s baffling to the degree that I wonder if there‘s paid actors on social media in this sense

harry_balzac

•

Definitely paid actors. These companies all have social media teams. It's not improbable that they create fake personal accounts to post apologist bs.

They also can buy sock puppet accounts and use those.

Chozo

•

Yeah, I'm sure Blizzard's really dumping a lot of resources into "shitposting on a Reddit clone with under 30k MAUs".

FooBarrington

•

Feeling called out?

Chozo

•

I wish. I'll bet Blizzard pays good.

Minotaur

•

I’m a real, human, unpaid “apologist” for DLC like this presented in Tekken 8 - AMA

Zonetrooper

•

Gaming "journalism" can't afford outright say "company deliberately tries to hide enshittification of their game" aloud. Might lose that access to selective early copies for review!

Brunbrun6766

•

Can't wait for F2P game from the company probably MOST known for in game shops??

cyberpunk007

•

Bait and switch. That's the move.

PapstJL4U

•

Project L will not use LoL but Valorant as base.

Riot is a fan of fomo and high pricess.

Cossty

•

What do you mean "new shitty norm"? Companies have been doing that for years already. First time I saw it around 2017 I think. I not sure about the game, but I think it was Call of Duty.

frunch

•

From what i gather, they waited until after the reviews were in. They got a good score, which i guess would have been impacted by the inclusion of microtransactions, and released them after the reviews were in. Sounds like they were trying to avoid the bad press they would have gotten for including them (or perhaps purchases even, from people starkly against the practice)

Poggervania

•

Bamco knows bikini skins of their characters are gonna sell like hotcakes.

That being said, I’ll forgive them if they only release a Kazuya bikini skin with jiggle physics for his pecs.

intensely_human

•

I mean let’s be real here. Tekken was originally based on 50¢ microtransactions

yamanii

•

It already was, activision and capcom both did that, and no, cheat DLCs aren't accessibility, cheats should be free like they were back in the ps2 days and earlier.

littlebluespark

•

Called it.

Peffse

•

So, is this game DOA?

inclementimmigrant

•

No, we're taking about Tekken. DOA has shitty mtx problems of its own.

Badum tis.

pgetsos

•

DOA

Badum tits*

KuroiKaze

•

10/10

Vipsu

•

I wish more players would just ignore these cosmetic microtransactions and go with the default skin or at least limit themselves to ones that can be obtained by actually achieving something in the game. Using default skin while outplaying people in competitive games could probably induce some people to make quite salty comments.

Shade

•

Sickening.

Chozo

•

I don't get it, it's just gonna be skins, right? Pretty much every fighting game has paid skins these days, that's what funds continued development for balancing and new content.

Unless there's something really egregious being offered for sale, I don't see the issue. Cosmetics are one of the few MTX I'm okay with, for the most part.

harry_balzac

•

It's that they added it after release without previous notice.

Chozo

•

I'm not seeing why that's a problem, if it's still just cosmetics.

Also, anybody who expected a AAA fighting game to not have cosmetic MTX in 2024 probably isn't that keen on the fighting game scene to begin with. That's just how the genre works these days; the players want continuous balance patches as new tech and exploits are discovered, and that comes at a cost. If you think $70 is enough for potentially years of continued support and updates, then you haven't been keeping up with the economy's effects on the gaming industry.

Juigi

•

Fuck me publishers love consumers like you.

Chozo

•

I'm not sure why any of this is a hot take. I get the feeling that most of the people in this thread aren't even Tekken players, or fighting game players at all.

These games only work with continued funding. If that's not for you, then that's totally fine and understandable. But these games require labor, and labor requires payment. And the community is willing and eager to pay.

You wouldn't work for free would you? Why should anybody expect software developers to?

yamanii

•

Because the game isn't free but the microtransactions are exceptionally high still are new characters going to be free since they are selling cosmetics? No, they aren't so really, who's winning here? I'm glad Project L is going to dethrone every single one of these games.

Chozo

•

I’m glad Project L is going to dethrone every single one of these games.

Yeah, Riot would never add MTX to their games, right?

yamanii

•

The game is free, they can do that.

Dewded

•

You're totally on point. Lemmy has a lot of people stuck in the past. It's a significant bias.

The store will garner good sales and the Tekken devs will eat well. This will be enabled by people who see value in their work and happily pay for it.

It really doesn't matter what a vocal minority thinks, when the valuable non-vocal minority is out there paying big bucks for Kazuya in a fundoshi.

In order to reach new heights as a game service, Tekken needs all the money it can get.

People also seem to forget that Tekken started off in arcades. These arcade releases were far more aggressive in their monetization, especially in Korea and Japan. You would have people paying 5-10$ for a couple of hours. Players would also have to pay for their online player IDs.

Tekken 7 still had this business model. The game released for arcade in 2015. 2017 for all platforms.

The game was thoroughly milked before it was more accessible.

Minotaur

•

Yes but don’t you get it, the nerds want constant influxes of free new content - they’re being “literally robbed” by paying $70 for 200+ hours of entertainment as it is!!

Wrench

•

Same argument every time. I don't give a shit, nor will I ever give a shit, if the only micro transactions are skins. It does not affect gameplay, it only adds a little way to customize for the enthusiasts. That's fine, and has been a regular Tekken feature since PS3. Why people care so much is beyond me.

Juigi

•

Full priced game adding microtransactions cosmetic or not will always be total bullshit.

caseofthematts

•

"As long as it's only cosmetics" has moved the goalposts from where we used to be on the matter. I completely agree it's bullshit.

The Tales Of series has been bullshit. Used to be fun collecting new costumes from hidden events and side quests. Now half of the interesting costumes are either DLC or different edition bonuses which you can later purchase as DLC.

woelkchen

•

I don’t give a shit, nor will I ever give a shit

Yes, you do. If you truly didn't care, you would have no incentive to even comment at all.

Why people care so much is beyond me.

Namco cares. That's why they had hidden the feature from the launch version.