Need For Speed Payback General Discussion
- Thread starter Ameer67
- 1,566 comments
- 134,485 views
- 241
- Dominican Republic
- JayJay187GTP
I'll hold my judgement until I have the opportunity to test it myself,I don't want to jump into conclusions just yet.
- 2,294
- Lisbon
- LordWikii
Even the Deluxe Edition doesn't look all that bad, you get the Platinum Car Pack and a future Pack of Story Missions but the rest is just something that they could have given for free. Nobody is really looking at Witcher 3 extensive support roadmap as inspiration which is a shame.
- 1,003
- Spain
Why I would need more cars with a handling model that is so bad every car it's the same?
The exquisite sound of NFS is the only thing that makes me want to buy them (if I would buy the game).
The exquisite sound of NFS is the only thing that makes me want to buy them (if I would buy the game).
- 1,143
- United States
- Jake-Racer1221
Day 1 DLC is a problem because the "players" that experienced this package and the original will have different things in each. Like the tire smoke not being able to do in the regular game. Also, including extra cars and story behind a Pre-Order paywall I don't like. It's too limiting.Even the Deluxe Edition doesn't look all that bad, you get the Platinum Car Pack and a future Pack of Story Missions but the rest is just something that they could have given for free. Nobody is really looking at Witcher 3 extensive support roadmap as inspiration which is a shame.
Silver Arrows
(Banned)
- 4,715
- Brandon, MB
- Silver-Arrows21
- 1,143
- United States
- Jake-Racer1221
I dunno, some pre-orders do that quite a lot. Then again, if it's optional story then its cool. On the other hand, this is launch DLC, the worst of the worst. If they added this extra content and give discounts to said players they automatically have a bit more of a advantage. I don't know what "Crates" are, but I am assuming it seems to be some sort of microtransaction stuff? Or maybe car parts? That said, something is far fishy in that pre-order.
- 708
- United States
More of an advantage for what? It's a single player campaign for one thing. I don't get all the consternation about this. I'm not singling you or anyone out in particular because a lot of people have commented similarly. I'm calling out the whole group of "equality and justice for all" gamers. If losing some sort of perceived advantage is a big deal to some, then they need to buy the extra stuff. If they can't afford to, then they shouldn't. Any game developer has the right to make day one DLC.... it's called "trying to maximize profit." It's what I do every day I go into work.
Now in order to get to work, I have to drive a vehicle. That vehicle has power windows, cruise control, and other features that are optional purchases. The vehicle was also simultaneously offered by the manufacturer WITHOUT those options. Should the people who CHOSE to purchase the same vehicle but without the additional options be upset with me because I chose to spend more and get the extra stuff? Of course not. The idea is ludicrous. And yet that is exactly the argument gamers use - "How dare the developer/publisher of XXXX game make it with different features for a different price, and give people a choice!"
The concept of "a right to equality" that gamers have fascinates me. In the PC gaming world, nothing could be further from the truth. You might be a millisecond slower than your opponent because your hardware is slower than his. How about on the drag strip? You wanna win? Better pony up the cash for the parts needed to be one millisecond faster than the competition. In any of these scenarios, you can't fault the equipment maker because YOU, the end consumer, either can and choose not to, or can't and therefore cannot choose, to buy the stuff they offer.
The whole concept of faulting game developers for making additional stuff for their game and charging for it is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard of, and it comes up over and over and over again. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But don't complain about their business practices. The end consumer, all of us and our collective purchasing power AND purchasing decisions, dictate what is acceptable marketing and business practices.
Last edited:
- 14,436
- Los Angeles, CA
- Lma_robot
- lImaRobotl
Because they have the right to make day one DLC doesn't make it any more acceptable. I for one don't have an issue as long as it's not giving advantages, and as long as it's reasonably priced.
This example doesn't work well with this, it's not the same thing. You aren't gaining any significant advantage for having power windows compared to roll ups. Some people will find a lighter vehicle an advantage, depending on what they're trying to do
What would work is that if you ordered a car and sit on a waiting list waiting for the car to become finally available to purchase, but if you opted to wait in line you, they'll modify it for you giving it an extra hundred horsepower just because you ordered the car early. It creates too much of a divide, a developer should not give you different features just because you paid more, or paid early, that's absurd. Extra content is always fine, but base features should be available to all. Everyone should have the same base game, and the extra's given should not insignificantly impact those that do not receive it.
It's a bad practice, however, I'm not saying that this is what I'm seeing here. I'm just commenting on your example.
Why shouldn't we have a right to equality when it comes to us all purchasing the same game? That's what is fascinating here. It reminds me of the game Destiny, where PS4 users will always receive things that XBOX users do not have access too, just because Sony paid for exclusivity, it all sucks.
Which doesn't fit at all, because at that point, its your fault, not the developers.
The only way this would have a resemblance to the discussion of getting unfair advantages is if the dragstrip coordinators always gave you 3 second headstart every single time, just because you gave them more money than the other guy.
Exactly, which isn't the same thing as the developers giving unfair advantages to people if they choose to give them money.
Which no one is saying.
I'll complain about business practices as much as I want, because, you know, we are the ones that decide where our money goes. If something doesn't seem worth it, I'll state it as I see fit.
Again, I don't see this happening in this case, but I just don't agree with what you've said.
- 708
- United States
Let's set preorders aside here, because I don't think it really applies in this case. The developer isn't promising extra stuff for the same price if you preorder, are they? (Maybe they are, I haven't paid attention). As far as I know you can preorder two different versions of the game - A regular one and one that has extra stuff but also costs more. So here's my point: If you give them more money, why wouldn't they give you more value? What would be absurd is for a developer, manufacturer, or any other business entity to NOT give you MORE stuff for MORE money. In fact, it could be considered criminal! So a developer should absolutely give you different features just because you paid more. Now whether or not they choose to make a "special edition" or whatever, that's their prerogative. But if they do make one, they don't just have the right, they have a necessity to charge more for it. To do otherwise would be the truly unfair scenario, not the other way around.
Legitimate question: What features are available in the deluxe version of this game that would significantly impact people who don't have them? Seriously, I don't know, I'm just asking. I keep seeing this idea of "fairness" and "equality" so I'm wondering how it actually impacts the individual player. Are we talking about multiplayer? Like, losing races because someone paid more to get better cars? Again,... the dragstrip illustration - pay more for faster stuff. It's the way life works. I wouldn't pick a fight with a Lamborghini on a real street and then whine because he beat me.... he paid more for nicer stuff. I literally cannot wrap my brain around any other argument as to why this should be different in the video game world.
I agree that paid exclusives suck. Like, if I have an Xbox but wanted something on PS, it would suck because I would have to buy another system to get it. But again... it's business. Every brand of vehicle (to continue using car illustrations) is different. They HAVE TO BE in order to compete for your hard-earned dollar. You can't always get the same features on a Ford as you can a Chevy, and even if they could be considered "equal" they are going to look and behave differently. Why is that considered evil in the video game industry? See, I think people are misusing the term "equality." People are wanting equality, when in reality, they are looking for uniformity. The equality is there - Sony gets exclusives, Xbox gets exclusives. Deluxe editions - More product costs more money - that's reasonable; fair. What people are wanting is uniformity - They want the same exact game with the same exact features regardless of which platform they choose to game on. That's possible. But it eliminates choices and options. It would eliminate deluxe editions of games, which at first might seem like a great idea, but the reality is that we would get simpler games with fewer features because of staggering development costs.
That doesn't fit at all. What your illustration describes (in the context of this game) is if you paid Ghost Games extra money to rig the multiplayer so that you can always win. That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about paying more for product (i.e. carparts and such, either virtual or literal), not preferential treatment. The virtual playing field is equal. The difference is A) The skill of the driver (which no one has control over) and B) The equipment they bring to the table. If they pay more for the game, they should get more/better/whatever equipment.
That's cool. You do you man.
- 14,436
- Los Angeles, CA
- Lma_robot
- lImaRobotl
Makes sense, but that was not what my point was about. It was about making sure those extra's aren't going to break the game/be so drastically different than what everyone is getting, that it becomes an absolutely unfair advantage. I don't mind extras like cash and what not because thats easy enough to attain in games. As long as it isn't different features and what not, I'd be all for it. Extra content is fine, extra features is bad practice, save that for expansions if anything.
The context of my discussion was specifically noted that I don't believe what is being discussed is happening to this game, but more so that I didn't believe in your train of though.
It sure is business, and its also bad practice. It sucks plain and simple, and it being "business" doesn't change that.
Every game regardless of the edition you buy should have the exact same features, but different content given. You should get access to photomode just because you bought a deluxe edition, that is my point. You keep listing that features should be different depending on what version you buy, but that's a bit ridiculous. If it's content that you mean, than I agree with you, but not if you actually mean features.
It works perfectly because that was the example I was using as getting an unfair advantage(even though I specifically mentioned plenty of times that I don't think this is whats going on with the game.) All that was was an example to go against your train of thought that I didn't agree with.
Yes, more content. Not more Features. I feel, if anything, you're either mixing up the two or you don't differentiate the two.
Some people just don't mind responding in detail. If you don't want to read it, it's very easy to skip over. It's not like this took an extended amount of time to write out anyways, and it equally doesn't take much time to read either."Triggered - the post(s)."
I get what you're saying, and I'm not trying to backseat-monitor, but there's a difference between a paragraph, and a short-story over two separate posts. It's a videogame guys, don't take it so seriously.
Last edited:
- 5,187
- Manila
- Filracer
Thoughts on that video:
- The performance part reward system is similar to NFS No Limits.
- Oh look we got the Jag F-Type now. And the Mercedes as well from No Limits where you can win one from the Lil Wayne special event I think.
- So we can now go to shops. I hope we can explore and see inside of those shops.
- That modified 240Z looks dope.
- The performance part reward system is similar to NFS No Limits.
- Oh look we got the Jag F-Type now. And the Mercedes as well from No Limits where you can win one from the Lil Wayne special event I think.
- So we can now go to shops. I hope we can explore and see inside of those shops.
- That modified 240Z looks dope.
- 708
- United States
Yes, that may be part of the issue. I am not distinguishing the two because I've honestly never heard of a console game that requires you to pay more for base "features." So I don't really understand the argument being presented. If you can give me some examples of games that are fundamentally different based on the amount of money paid for them, I'd be happy to agree that such a marketing practice sucks. I think you are essentially describing a "pay-to-win" model, which is rampant in mobile gaming platforms and MMORPGs, if I'm not mistaken (I don't know for sure because neither of those are my forte).
The only things I've ever seen that demand a premium price on console and PC games is additional content. To use Payback as an example, things like more starting money, more cars, exclusive tire smoke - those are not features that make or break the game, change the story, or prohibit a person from being able to finish the base game. In my opinion, even things like story expansions, on this or any other game, still qualifies as content, not a feature. That's the key reason complaints about this irk me.... my thought is: They [the developer/publisher] decided to sell something extra.... so if you [the hypothetical gamer] just have to have blue tire smoke, then buy it. If you don't feel it's right to spend the money, then don't. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to fork over the cash. So complaining about the practice as if it's some kind of extortion is silly.
Again, we dictate business practices with our spending dollar. If they can't make money doing it this way, they wouldn't. They aren't to blame, the collective consumer is. I would gladly like to charge twice the amount for my [real-world] services. Who wouldn't? But I can't because it's not competitive. People won't go for it. But as long as people go for spending more for additional content in the gaming world, these practices will continue.
We don't have a disagreement about the topic I don't believe. If and when games like Payback start charging extra in order to have manual transmission, photo-mode, and such similar features, then I will gladly hop on the complaint train along with everyone else!
- 5,766
- USA
- TPC_Raccooon23
- CRaccoon23
The video was more about how upgrading cars work than showing off new customization. They didn't even show the neons they teased yesterday. Not impressed at all.
- 5,166
- Manila
- jkty1029
- 14,436
- Los Angeles, CA
- Lma_robot
- lImaRobotl
I thought that may have been the case. I'm not using an exact example, but going off what you where saying about extra features it was getting confusing to me. I consider a feature something like tuning(not customizing), or multiplayer and consider content(which we both agree that if you pay more, you should get more content) to be things like cosmetics, cars, stupid tire smoke and so on.
I am not describing a pay to win model.
Now that we cleared up the confusion about features and content, I believe we're on the same page. 👍We don't have a disagreement about the topic I don't believe. If and when games like Payback start charging extra in order to have manual transmission, photo-mode, and such similar features, then I will gladly hop on the complaint train along with everyone else!
- 920
- United States
- Turboteg90
I think almost all the games clip the tires when you lower a car. They dont model tire rub, it just goes thru.
