Have SDS/Sony Tried To Publicly Defend Their Obvious and Systematic Increase In Monetization?
-
@IrishFist412_MLBTS, no one got "owned" because someone linked to a stupid bill that Josh Hawley put his name on.
Do you know that the bill received no votes in committee and died before it got to the floor because it was meritless and a waste of time to begin with?
Oh, and packs aren't essentially casino games... they're essentially packs of baseball cards. Maybe Josh Hawley can bring another bill that would stop Topps from corrupting our youth and turning them into gamblers.
-
@The_Joneser_PSN Nah man…I respect you standing up for your friend but he got OWNED!!!!!!!!
-
@SaveFarris_PSN said in Have SDS/Sony Tried To Publicly Defend Their Obvious and Systematic Increase In Monetization?:
"Clearly".
Funny, I thought the move away from sets and seasons (and the "expiring" cards that went with it) wasn't exactly micro-transaction friendly.
I will repeat sets allowed me to use any cards to complete a collection now I need to spend money to complete certain collections no thanks
-
The micro-transaction-heavy move bothers me about as much as the major software companies (Adobe, Microsoft, Intuit, etc.) that stopped selling their software and transitioned to annual or monthly subscriptions. I used to be able to buy a software program, keep it for two or three years, and then upgrade for less than the original purchase (or price of an original copy of the software). Now, I have to spend $$$ every month or year to keep using software that I find helpful (like Dreamweaver).
I'm almost inclined to believe that game companies saw how much more software companies were making doing this and changed their games to match, but even more aggressively.
Until someone passes a law to make what these companies are doing illegal, they are not required to answer for their actions. It's business to them. It may be unethical to us, because we don't want to spend all the extra money for a game we already purchased...but that's the way it is now.
I've stopped using certain software packages because I refuse to pay subscription prices for them. Someday, this will happen with this game, too. Until then, I'll keep trying to see how far I can get with NMS, and don't worry if I can't get every card.
-
@Blind_Bleeder_PSN said in Have SDS/Sony Tried To Publicly Defend Their Obvious and Systematic Increase In Monetization?:
The micro-transaction-heavy move bothers me about as much as the major software companies (Adobe, Microsoft, Intuit, etc.) that stopped selling their software and transitioned to annual or monthly subscriptions. I used to be able to buy a software program, keep it for two or three years, and then upgrade for less than the original purchase (or price of an original copy of the software). Now, I have to spend $$$ every month or year to keep using software that I find helpful (like Dreamweaver).
I'm almost inclined to believe that game companies saw how much more software companies were making doing this and changed their games to match, but even more aggressively.
Until someone passes a law to make what these companies are doing illegal, they are not required to answer for their actions. It's business to them. It may be unethical to us, because we don't want to spend all the extra money for a game we already purchased...but that's the way it is now.
I've stopped using certain software packages because I refuse to pay subscription prices for them. Someday, this will happen with this game, too. Until then, I'll keep trying to see how far I can get with NMS, and don't worry if I can't get every card.
Don't worry, they will never do subscription based because the current model is far more profitable. An inning pass will probably be added at some point, which if done well could be a good addition but they are rarely done well.
Shareholders see the industry where things like Madden and Genshin Impact print money by providing extremely low value for the dollar. Most of us, if Ohtani is converted from a stub amount to dollar amount, would think anyone that pays for that is crazy. But there are absolutely people that do this and thats where Sony makes the money, not the people that spend 0-100 each year.
-
@Teak2112_MLBTS see, again, you bring live service in as an argument that it’s better or not as nefarious. And it doesn’t make sense.
The SDS model, while having a monetization aspect to it, is still 100% free to play and all the rewards are accessible without spending a dime. It may not be day one, but it shouldn’t be the goal either.
Live service is way, way worse. You HAVE to pay to participate. It is absolutely either cutting away kids that don’t (shouldn’t) have a credit card or that their parents refuse to pay after the initial purchase. If your budget doesn’t allow you to indulge, live service is a gateway keeping you from participating.
Something tells me that DD would see a massive drop in hours played with LS model, as it should. Options are good.
-
@SaveFarris_PSN said in Have SDS/Sony Tried To Publicly Defend Their Obvious and Systematic Increase In Monetization?:
Funny, I thought the move away from sets and seasons (and the "expiring" cards that went with it) wasn't exactly micro-transaction friendly.
Sets and Seasons were a complete and utter disaster, they were panned since 23 when introduced, and when 24 came out with them again despite the backlash, SDS was ripped to shreds. Expiring Sets and Seasons were the biggest blatant push towards MTX I've seen in a game in a long time.
Yes they're still pushing MTX with Innings...but it's nowhere near as bad. Now nerfing the ways to earn in game currency in an effort to move people towards the Stub shop...that's just toxic, albeit sound from a business perspective. People are correct in saying SDS isn't forcing anyone to actually buy the stubs...they are however heavily insisting that you do, again as evidenced by the recent nerfing of the DQs
-
No matter how you slice it the game has been in a free fall decline for years. The last great game was 21 and since then the descent has picked up more speed each year.
People love to say go find another game, or it’s still better than Madden or 2K, but those statements drive me insane because there is no great alternative baseball game to play and comparing the show to those other 2 franchises reeks of desperation.
The old game is dead and never coming back. I begrudgingly accept it but doesn’t mean I have to like it.
-
@Teak2112_MLBTS said in Have SDS/Sony Tried To Publicly Defend Their Obvious and Systematic Increase In Monetization?:
@dbub_PSN said in Have SDS/Sony Tried To Publicly Defend Their Obvious and Systematic Increase In Monetization?:
I'm not going to list all the reasons that this is clearly happening. Many have been discussed on this board in '25. If you are playing this year and you compare it to any other year it's clearly gearing towards more microtransactions.
So I'm curious if they've come out and tried to defend this or is it just swept under the rug, hoping we'll forget?
The flip side is how did they defend the lighter monetization of 2023 and prior to the Sony shareholders? They dont give a rats [censored] if the players are happy, and its a widely known fact that player happiness is largely irrelevant to profit in gacha or ultimate team modes.
You do know that people have choice right? Don't buy/play.
I was a madden/MUT die hard. Finally had enough of their [censored] and didn't buy this year. Won't buy the next version either and I'm probably completely done with the franchise.
If players can't prioritize their happiness by choosing to not spend on a game that they don't enjoy then why should a company do it for them? Want a better game? Stop buying it. It's really that simple.
And for the "it's the only baseball game" people. Yeah maybe but I'm sure you can find something else that's actually enjoyable to use that time towards. Right now, I'd wager most people who buy that are unhappy with the game do so because of addiction to an annual habit.
-
@yankblan_PSN said in Have SDS/Sony Tried To Publicly Defend Their Obvious and Systematic Increase In Monetization?:
@Teak2112_MLBTS see, again, you bring live service in as an argument that it’s better or not as nefarious. And it doesn’t make sense.
The SDS model, while having a monetization aspect to it, is still 100% free to play and all the rewards are accessible without spending a dime. It may not be day one, but it shouldn’t be the goal either.
Live service is way, way worse. You HAVE to pay to participate. It is absolutely either cutting away kids that don’t (shouldn’t) have a credit card or that their parents refuse to pay after the initial purchase. If your budget doesn’t allow you to indulge, live service is a gateway keeping you from participating.
Something tells me that DD would see a massive drop in hours played with LS model, as it should. Options are good.
DD is live service by definition. Fortnite is live service too, and while i have never actually played it my understanding is all content is freely available to everyone and its only cosmetics that are for sale.
Obviously that doesn't work for a sports game, because the market for dressing up Ohtani as Darth Vader probably isn't very profitable and the majority of us would want nothing to do with it.
I am a long time MMORPG player, and I know free to play absolutely gutted the genre. There was a substantial drop in quality of content as people rushed to monetize things. It brought in more players in the short term, but the made the games worse for all current players. Even worse, most good games like WoW and FFXIV now double dip.
When you make money off of micro transactions, you need to make them desirable and unless its cosmetics it will always come at the expense of content that could have been equally (but not necessarily easily) available otherwise.
The monetization here absolutely intrudes on the player's experience. You can't deny that in good faith. You could argue that the pros outweigh the cons for you personally, and that's fair to do. But it is not inherently a player friendly model even if it can give that illusion.
Here is the simple test: would you say the game is more player friendly than it was 2-3 years ago?
The counter argument is that is it player friendly compared to the competition, and the answer is of course it is. But the trend is concerning. Still, we are several years away form it becoming a real problem.
For me, personally, I will get Beltran when I get him, even if he is one of my favorite players. I will never chase the live series until I am naturally near completion, which will happen. I just got Kirby'd with the ranked 50 pack (0 diamonds, Kirby chase) but I know RNG and consider I somehow pulled Polanco out of a deluxe egg pack earlier in the program so it balances out.
As someone that likes baseball in general, my biggest issue with the packs is spotlight. Topps Now and Monthly Awards have been decimated by monetization. 3 cards per week in program vs 5 in pack is simply unacceptable to me (you could argue 4 and 4 since you get 1 pack for free), and I will continue to complain about this like a broken record.
I was also down on the reduction in content (long programs, mini seasons, big conquests) that existed in 2024 and much of innings 1+2, but inning 3 has been an overall W for me and has revitalized my spark. They really need to release more mini seasons though, if this were prior years, color storm would have had a mini season with it with opponents largely made up of color storm and jolt.
These are the two things holding back the game this year for me from being an A.
-
Ohtani as Darth Vader probably isn't very profitable and the majority of us would want nothing to do with it.
Swinging a lightsaber at the pitches seems to me would be very fun.
-
@Teak2112_MLBTS said in Have SDS/Sony Tried To Publicly Defend Their Obvious and Systematic Increase In Monetization?:
Here is the simple test: would you say the game is more player friendly than it was 2-3 years ago?
Good post, I wanted to answer the question: No. Imo it is the same as say 21/22 … it always had cards I could not afford but I fielded an awesome squad by playing the game
-
I must be taking crazy pills. How is anybody feeling the need to put more money into this game? If you play the game, which I’m assuming is the case if you’re compelled to spend money, then you’re earning plenty of cards that you can compete with. Maybe those complaining just don’t understand how the game works? That’s the only thing I can think of. I don’t have Beltre or Hodges yet, but it’ll happen eventually and it’ll all be ok. PCA and Raines work just fine and if you can’t hit the fastball on HOF with them, you’re not going to hit it with Beltre either.
If someone wants to spend their money on this game, have at it. You’re probably the same type of person that bought a cyber truck and waits in line for the newest iPhone. The rest of us will just hang out for awhile and get stuff when we get stuff. -
@tear4eddy_PSN said in Have SDS/Sony Tried To Publicly Defend Their Obvious and Systematic Increase In Monetization?:
I must be taking crazy pills. How is anybody feeling the need to put more money into this game? If you play the game, which I’m assuming is the case if you’re compelled to spend money, then you’re earning plenty of cards that you can compete with. Maybe those complaining just don’t understand how the game works? That’s the only thing I can think of. I don’t have Beltre or Hodges yet, but it’ll happen eventually and it’ll all be ok. PCA and Raines work just fine and if you can’t hit the fastball on HOF with them, you’re not going to hit it with Beltre either.
If someone wants to spend their money on this game, have at it. You’re probably the same type of person that bought a cyber truck and waits in line for the newest iPhone. The rest of us will just hang out for awhile and get stuff when we get stuff.2023: diamond duo pack every week. chase pack every month. occasional other packs on average every 3 weeks or so. Collections could be completed by investing a lot of time in game and earning all the free cards (longer programs, BR, etc) with minimal need to spend stubs
2025: headliner every week. chase pack every week. spotlight every week. occasional other packs, typically every 2 weeks. Collections (outside of Rolen in the long run I assume) are virtually impossible to complete without stubs. You can still complete collections for free, but its now via stubs and most ways people enjoy playing the game aren't remotely useful for stub generation
Just because you are fine with things regressing in terms of volume of pack cards vs game play earned cards doesn't mean other people should be. We may have already had more pack cards this year than 2023 did its entire season, and thats allowing its version of headliners having 2 cards each week. If we haven't, we will get there long before the all star break.
-
@Teak2112_MLBTS that doesn’t make any sense. Maybe you’re doing DD all wrong? I finished Rolen pretty easily without spending a dime of real money. Yes, I spent “stubs”, but you can sell duplicates and players you don’t want to get stubs, which can then in turn be used to purchase what you do want. You earn all sorts of stubs and packs and cards doing the most basic activities in the game.
What ways are you looking to make stubs? Ranked gives you tons of stuff. DQ gives you lots of stuff (not my cup of tea, so I don’t do much hear but people seem to clean up), Conquest gives you tons of stuff. Programs can be tied into Conquest and DQ so you’re doing those together, along with all the TA and Color Rush.
Seems like you just don’t get how DD works and are blaming SDS for that. -
@Teak2112_MLBTS said in Have SDS/Sony Tried To Publicly Defend Their Obvious and Systematic Increase In Monetization?:
@SaveFarris_PSN said in Have SDS/Sony Tried To Publicly Defend Their Obvious and Systematic Increase In Monetization?:
"Clearly".
Funny, I thought the move away from sets and seasons (and the "expiring" cards that went with it) wasn't exactly micro-transaction friendly.
2023 was not heavy on micro transactions. Collections didnt require any use of stubs, and outside of the chase cards the pack cards were typically just fine. Day 1 99s devalued live series significantly, and stubs flowed pretty freely still.
Sure, cards may have "only" had a 2 month shelf life or so in some content, unless you wild carded them, but its not like they were replacing them with must have pack cards.
If the 2023 style of sets and seasons was an attempt to increase monetization, it was a massive failure
2024 is a different story though, but then the cards expired far too quickly which I'm sure was a disincentive. And the power creep was way too fast for it to be truly effective for monetization.
It should be pretty clear now that a slow power creep is the absolute best scenario for monetization. Easy to make cards more appealing, and the downside of only being able to use it for a month or two is gone
I have to disagree with this. I remember everyone on here complaining about the non-existent "grind for 99" that was advertised. Kind of like we've called BIAH packs "Ballin is a gold" I read a lot of "grind for 97, pay for 99."
I think it was, probably partially, successful. That's why they tried to do almost the same thing in 24. Then last year was the complete failure. I do agree with your reasoning behind this failure though.
Whether I like the monetization or not is irrelevant. We are all still hurting financially. They're trying to stay afloat like us. At least eggs and gas prices have gone down a bit.
