2 years
You must log in or register to comment.
- smeg@feddit.ukEnglish2 years
Is this a sponsored post by a bought-and-paid-for shill, or is the writer just so worn down by microtransactions over the years that they’re Stockholm-Syndromed into thinking this is somehow OK?
2 yearsDiablo 4, a full priced game, has microtransactions that are as expensive as the game itself, and skins that cost as much as 30 USD, when a game doesn’t fuck the people as hard it draws attention.
- 2 years
That’s such victim mentality. That’s like saying you like Guard A over Guard B because Guard A doesn’t beat you as severely.
- De_Narm@lemmy.worldEnglish2 years
It can be the least predatory mtx system ever, being in a paid game is still not acceptable and I’ll die on that hill. Never bought anything with a shop or battle pass and won’t start now.
- pycorax@lemmy.worldEnglish2 years
Unpopular opinion but I think it’s acceptable as long as its optional especially as multiplayer game where they are hosting servers. Those aren’t cheap and I don’t have the game so I wouldn’t know but if they do release more multiplayer content for free, I think it’s further justification because that’s better than paid content packs. As an example, CoD on PC had a recurring issue of DLC content being useless since too little people would buy them. Titanfall saw this issue as well and it was even worse due to the smaller player base. So with Titanfall 2 they just made it free and added cosmetics microtransactions that were actually reasonably priced.
Maybe this is not the solution for everything but as long as it has no bearing on gameplay what’s the harm? If you’re not one to spend on microtransactions then you only get the benefits. I don’t think a more benign implementation should be criticised just because we fear the potential of it potentially becoming worse.
- DaseinPickle@leminal.spaceEnglish2 years
I think there need to be a balance. If it’s a service game, they need money to keep servicing the game. There is a fine line between a reasonable voluntary option to support a game in exchange for some symbolic cosmetic and gross predatory practices.
- De_Narm@lemmy.worldEnglish2 years
I don’t think every topic deserves nuance. Every mtx shop is predatory, every successful service game lives off whales. You’d just draw an arbitrary line at how aggressivly they hunt whales, but they need them all the same. Even if you can get everything with ingame currency drops, if people wouldn’t spend enough, the game wouldn’t get new content.
The only fair solution is to scrap mtx entirely and make all service games subscription based. But people aren’t ready for that, this conversation often comes down to “as long as they don’t exploit me, I’ll take my free games”.
- DaseinPickle@leminal.spaceEnglish2 years
I would not call Deep Rock Galactic predatory… They release one! cosmetic pack for each season, and that’s it? There is no whales to catch, because in that case it’s very limited how much you can even spend. Like 10 euro every 4-5 months and that’s it. Is that predatory to you?
- De_Narm@lemmy.worldEnglish2 years
I honestly can’t answer you, I don’t know anything about the game besides seeing it everywhere for years. Stuff like: How in your face is advertising? Do season even add anything besides these packs? Are they missable? The only thing I can say for sure: I dislike how they present multiple bundles with varying amounts of DLC on their steam page. Without prior knowledge I’d have to go through everything and check if I’d be missing out on some actual DLC content and I’d assume there are people buying an actually reasonably priced game for over a 100 bucks because they want all DLC assuming it’s real content. Sure, that’s on them not checking, but also kinda on the developer naming it stuff like “Deluxe” or “Master” Edition instead of “All Cosmetics Edition” or something among those lines.
Regardless, even if it is an genuine exception, they add massive content updates and don’t push these packs at all. Do they even make a profit then? Massively successful games like DRG, Terraria or Stardew Valley can do whatever they want - they have funded themselves more or less for life already and probably would still sell anyways. Normal service games need to turn a profit with their updates which still means either having a subscription or predatory mtx.
- TwilightVulpine@lemmy.worldEnglish2 years
There’s merit to that, but keep in mind that sometimes the game is bound to a service for the sake of enabling microtransactions to begin with, and if not for that they would have let players to host their own servers. This has happened to most multiplayer games from larger publishers.
- Sanguine@lemmy.worldEnglish2 years
You can literally earn all the credits you need to buy out the store just from playing.
- De_Narm@lemmy.worldEnglish2 years
Having the option to use real money is the problem. Nothing is stopping them from adding more and more expensive stuff until you cannot grind it anymore. That’s how we went free cosmetics to 60+ bucks for skins.
- Arcane_Trixster@lemm.eeEnglish2 years
Oh, they can add content not included in the original purchase? And they ask me to buy those things they worked on if I want to play with them? Fucking monsters… someone needs to stop them.
- De_Narm@lemmy.worldEnglish2 years
You know, drip feeding stuff is no fun. Paying for trivial things is no fun either. We used to get full-blown expansions for the price some companies want for a single skin.
Instead of adding stuff to a shop, games could get actual new content. Instead of buying every asset separately, they could all be thrown in with said new content. Like, yeah, they should get paid for their continued work, but that does not mean the consumer should be milked for every penny.
