This used to be the way with all games. You had one version. It was one game and everyone got the same thing. All the additional stuff is just a normalized scam.
I love the modern XCOM games, I love card games, I love games where the story follows a new superhero in an established superhero universe, I love XMen.
Yet.
Whilst I obviously was so excited for Marvel’s Midnight Son’s I was planning ahead to ask for cash to buy it full price for a birthday or something rather (to both play right away and support games that heavily target my tastes) rather than just wait for a deep sale a few years later like I normally would, all the buy this version and add on bits ala carte or buy this version that has some things but not all things but who know which is which or buy this super version that has the entire game or buy this hyper-mega version that has all of that and also stuff that’s not actually part of the game or buy a version that has the stuff that isn’t part of the game and most of the game… bullshit, just completely killed any interest I had in it.
I might pick it up and play it one day when it’s literally a few quid but quite possibly not at this point.
Just sell me the thing. Don’t complicate it. If I need to spend ages figuring out exactly which parts of a game I haven’t even played yet I do and don’t care about so I can try to see how close to a normal price I can pay and still get all the actual game, I’d rather just use that time to go play a game that wasn’t designed by MBE’s.
Tbh I don’t get the hate for this model. I’d much rather be able to play these games for free and get to try them. Skin funded games mean I’ve played a lot of games for free, and I don’t care at all about the skins (and I don’t even get why people would) so I view the skins like a donation. If I really like the game I can spend a bit of money to get a skin to support them.
I’ve played league of legends for literally thousands of hours and never spent a cent on it. I have hundreds of hours on apex and also never spent anythings. It’s way better than games where you spend like 20 dollars and then also need to spend either hundreds of hours or dollars to unlock 2/3 of the playable characters.
Game is an absolute masterpiece on top of it all. This kind of game needs unequal levels of support. They knocked it out of the park AND they did it all in the right way. I’m encouraging people to buy it and play if they like RPG, tabletop or even just interested in forgotten realms. One of a few games I’ve purchased for full price on Steam.
Earliest examples I am personally aware of are the shareware and “mission pack” model of the 1990s. DOOM basically was given away for free with the idea that you play Episode 1 and then send iD money to get the disks of Episodes 2 and 3 in the mail. Not sure if they did a BBS/FTP server for that (or Episode 4), but Star Crusader is very much a game that even did the in game advertisement of their DLC. I have fond memories of working my ass off one summer so I had enough money to mail a check to some random dude so he would mail me back login information so I could download the mission pack and see what happened to Roman Alexandria when he was abducted by that ship.
The “expansion pack” model that people praise was the exact same thing, just using store shelves to distribute. Because games were big enough that it was viable to expect players to drive down to Radio Shack and pick up a copy. And the main issue with that is that it meant we needed MUCH coarser grain content because it needed to justify a physical disc printing and distribution. Everyone rightfully shits on Oblivion’s horse armor. But the actual DLC burst that Oblivion had was… not horrible. Whereas the Fallout 3 DLC model was downright amazing for giving us 3 (5?) different mini areas and quest chains. No one DLC was a full expansion (well, people say The Pitt was but they are idiots) but it meant that we got the kind of variety that we had all been wanting ever since we got tired of spending two hours in a single biome in Diablo 2.
Which gets us to where we are now. Some studios do dogshit DLC. Others do good. The Larian model has generally been to NOT do DLC but to instead release an Enhanced Edition one or two years later. I assume with the licensing and the added funding for BG3 they don’t think they will need to but, time will tell.
But, personally? I would LOVE BG3: Throne of Bhaal. Not so much whatever the shitty BG1 expansion nobody played was.
*: and… there are a lot of arguments that stuff like basically every ARPG and RTS expansion pack were overpriced as hell by modern standards. Which is funny since those are the ones that are most praised.
Edit: The difference being with shareware you didn’t have to pay any money to try the game. Basically the game was the demo as well as a full game, and once you played the first part of it for free, and you decided you liked it, then you paid and the rest of the game you already had was unlocked.
As opposed to an f2p game with DLC? Or buying a full game and, once you played the first part of it, you decided you liked it, then you paid and the rest of the game you already had was unlocked.
I LOVE ARPGs but I am well aware that the Blizzard/Diablo model is almost exactly what people rage against. Diablo 2, Diablo 3, Dungeon Siege 1, Dungeon Siege 2, and plenty of others all followed the model of releasing the first 3-4 acts and then releasing the 4th/5th act for 30 bucks a year later.
Then please, stop me from being “intellectually dishonest”
What is the distinction between a Free to play game with paid expansion packs and DLC and a copy of a game that came on a CD that tells me where I can send a money order to to buy extra content?
Oh, am I being “intellectually dishonest” because I am not respecting the branding? Is that the distinction?
“buying a full game and, once you played the first part of it, you decided you liked it, then you paid and the rest of the game you already had was unlocked.”
“Free to play game with paid expansion packs and DLC”
Right there. There’s the blatant dishonesty. You’ve just described two different scenarios while attempting to portray them as the same.
I think wizards of the coast will demand more products that are part of baldur’s gate 3. Tbf, baldur’s gate 1 and 2 are known for their expansions. I wouldn’t be opposed to an expansion or two.
I didn’t even know about this. This is awesome, but the last thing I’d like to know is does it have predatory online requirements or can you play offline and not be forced to log in to play?
This is the right way, but also it’s entirely ridiculous that it has to be said.
If I owned a small grocery store chain, and I had a website FAQ, it would be weird if it said, “Will my kids be taken by strangers and trafficked out of the country while I shop?” And even if the answer was, “No. We firmly believe you should remain in possession of your children at all times and no one else, so that you can enjoy your family.” it would still be weird that we were talking about it in the first place - because yes, that’s nice and all, but it shouldn’t even be an issue worth discussing.
It shouldn’t have to be said, true, but if other grocery shops let this happen, and in fact designed the grocery store to make kidnapping easier, I would love to see it called out on your website.
Funny enough (and sad to say), he commented on it in this context actually in a VICE article,
**A lot of the sketches in Mr. Show seem to carry added relevance today. The “Worthington’s Law” skit is basically Donald Trump. Is the show’s prescience eerie to you?**Yes! I don’t like when reality is a joke—when it plays out like a by-the-numbers satirical comedy scene written by a bunch of goofballs. Reality should be more complex than that—it shouldn’t be so obvious. It should be more textured. But it isn’t! The “Fairsley’s Foods” skit was what happened in the last election. FOX News was Fairsley’s Foods, just throwing up these accusations that you have to respond to, and by responding them you make them legitimate. But you have to respond to them, so you’re just screwed.
The weirdest thing isn’t that Trump follows Worthington’s Law—it’s that so much of America would completely agree and live by the logic of “if you make more money, then you’re smarter.” They believe that’s true. I don’t know if they know that Jesus didn’t make a lot of money in his life, but supposedly they think he’s pretty smart. It doesn’t make any sense."
The “DLC” is the digital deluxe version which you can purchase later. If you pre-ordered you got it for free. It’s stuff like a digital art book, and weapon skins.
The weapon skins are debatable but since there are no other skins really in the game as far as I can tell I don’t really see it as an issue in the slightest. And the art book and soundtrack are the perfect pre order bonus imo. Especially for a game where they actually used the early access properly, it’s a nice thank you I feel like.
They do, but barely. It’s just a couple of minor in game items/skins and some out of game music/art. Still leaps and bounds better than locking entire missions or characters behind deluxe edition nonsense.
I think you’re being deliberately misleading. It’s an upgrade to deluxe edition, which is a much better option than having to buy the entire game again just to get the stuff in the deluxe edition. And as far as deluxe editions go this is pretty mild considering the only in game stuff you seem to get are a unique dice skin, camp supplies and some potions, extra bard songs, extra collectible? and items referencing D:OS2.
It’s not like it’s the “From Ashes” DLC for Mass Effect 3. For those who don’t know “From ashes” was a day 1 DLC for ME3 containing missions about the last surviving Prothean. Protheans being the most important race in the story and possibly even in the ME lore. And after the missions that last protean becomes one of your companions. For many it was a very important part of the lore being separated and sold as an extra purchase. I even remember the late great Totalbiscuit boycotting the entire game because of that DLC.
I mean yeah but gamers keep supporting shitty companies that provide the exact opposite in record numbers so we don’t get stuff like this much anymore.
This isn’t “gamers”. It affects pretty much everything for everyone. People these days have no backbone anymore. Everything just has to be easy and convenient and going against greedy practices is not convenient so companies can push the limits.
It’s true, you get microtransactions for everything these days. I pay a fee (technically I don’t get a discount) because I told my cell phone provider to stop sending me spam multiple times a week. I’d rather pay the couple bucks per month extra then have to deal with that bullshit.
It is fucking bullshit. Look at some vehicle manufacturers limiting their cars unless a subscription is paid. Printers. If I buy the god damned thing I should be able to use it at its full potential until I no longer want to.
Oh God printers, there was a post that made it to the frontage I think yesterday that showed a email or something from HP that stated they disabled their printer, well the ink cartridge they paid for at least, because they didn’t renew their ink subscription.
The argument of cosmetic only microtransactions is also a bit of a weak one because it’s the sort of content that would usually just be in the base game, unlockable via gameplay or tied to cheat codes. At least this used to be the case.
Cosmetic only is still better than other types but it’s still a case of the lesser of two evils.
We game for what we game for. Some people game for the cosmetics. They are selling what consumers buy. I’m not saying it’s right. But if they keep buying why wouldn’t they sell it?
Yeah, the only reason anybody says that is because we’re so desensitized by pay-to-win mechanics and games being released half finished with day 1 dlc to fill the gaps, so we say “at least it’s better than that”
Remember horse armor? I bet there’s plenty of video games out now with cosmetic horse armor for sale.
I like the way Grinding Gear does it with POE, a FTP game supported by cosmetic-only micro transactions. The stash tabs are the closest thing to “pay to win”.
What's wrong with it? Literally every single gameplay-related item in both Dota and CSGO are free. 100%, no strings attached. You can experience the entire game and what it has to offer without spending a dime. At some point you have to charge for something. These companies aren't making these game out of charity, they are in fact businesses. You can criticize the methods they use to push them (lootboxes, BP, etc) but I don't see a problem with the concept.
Yeah, I like Valve but fuck those loot boxes, their tolerance of gambling, and screw that bs excuse of “it’s only cosmetic” because we know it’s not and it preys on the same insecurities and uses the same psychological tools to maximize profits using addiction.
Yes, Valve’s CS loot boxes and ignoring of the gambling sites that profit off of gamers addiction is absolutely bullshit but you’re a disingenuous troll if you think Valve is the leading offender of shitty monetization rampant in the industry.
You’re absolutely right, complacency on behalf of the consumers is what has given rise to the trend of spending real physical money on in-game currency.
The problem with DLC, is that content is undifferentiated. Meaning things like skins, music, artwork, etc. Are in the same boat as new zones/maps, characters, equipment, etc. Publishers use FOMO by bundling cosmetics with actual ‘new’ experienceable content.
Absolutely, there’s a reason that ABK hired psychologist to work for them and you damn well know it wasn’t for them to have in house mental health services for their developers.
I will never understand the drones of humanity buying the same CoD game over and over. They literally remade older ones because they have no other ideas to milk their fan base. It’s horrible.
BattleBit scratched my Battlefield itch after all these years of shitty games from DICE.
Their point is that they are good because they don’t have MTX and offered a “complete” game for your money. Except that last part isn’t exactly true, since they were charging for early access of an incomplete game. EA isn’t necessarily bad, but I hate the disingenuous statement.
Their statement said nothing about giving a complete experience from day one. You cut out the central part of the whole statement which is “without the need for additional purchases”.
The whole point of the public statement is about not requiring users to spend additional money to get the whole game. It got nothing to do with early access.
Are you just Diablo bashing because it’s in vogue? Because this is just bashing any game that does micro transactions. I don’t see how it’s specifically calling out Diablo.
We used to have both good and bad games without microtransactions. I dont think its right to give concessions to game companies that include microtransactions just because its become so normalised.
I dont feel sorry for a game company that cant make literal billions from a game without adding a store.
They dont need billions to develop good games. Most of that profit goes straight to the top and overworked developers see very little of it.
You can have completely f2p games though that everyone can enjoy and that has microtransactions though. Then everyone can enjoy the game and if they want to spend money then do so. That was the point of my post.
It’s awful paying full price for a game with microtransactions though, that is shitty for sure.
It's more of a "are good games with microtransactions good regardless of MTX or in spite of them?"
You can totally have a good game with MTX, but I think it always lowers the quality in some way, and they're only good in spite. I don't think OP is suggesting that no MTX guarantees a good game, but that a game should stand on its own merits and sell its whole experience instead of chopping itself up piecemeal
Agreed. I think the poster just means games should be sold as a whole, to which I agree. Whether it’s a good game or not is a different thing entirely!
I kind of doubt that. A lot of things like say, character skins, are done using the “leftover artist hours”, when the core programming of the game is done, but there’s a lot of tweaks and fixes going in - and the character artists are left with nothing to do. Having them make downloadable items is just another way to justify keeping those artists on the payroll.
The man-hours spent in MTX can’t necessarily easily be redirected to make more singleplayer content. Generally, if a game just doesn’t have enough content or doesn’t feel satisfying, that’s my direct criticism of it - that they didn’t do a good enough job, and it should show up in reviews too. I also generally don’t buy MTX at all, and have rarely felt I got “less than a whole entity”.
I know and understand the whole idea of maximizing artist hours for cosmetic DLC. It's an understandable reason for it to exist.
However, the big thing about MTX to me is the way it changes my perception of the game and how it feels to interact with it. Playing games without in-game cash shops or MTX allows me to focus on the game itself and feel that what I've purchased is one cohesive piece that works in a singular purpose towards a goal of something enjoyable to play and rewarding to explore the content of.
Something like Prey 2016. My entire memory and experience of playing that game is absolutely nothing but the experience of the lore, atmosphere, gameplay, decisions, and the creativity of exploration. At no point was I ever passing over menu options designed to sell me more piecemeal content, I wasn't wading through a reel of battle pass cosmetics, I wasn't attempting to ignore little rectangular ads on the main menu asking me to check some skins out.
And again, I totally understand why those things are there and I'm not inherently against their existence, I enjoy many games where those experiences are a part. In the end, I just believe that being free of that stuff absolutely makes a game feel perceptibly better and more pure, more of a game and less of a transparently monetized product.
I also feel like there's a sort of forbidden knowledge aspect to the whole "maximizing artist labor time for cosmetic MTX". The best way for cosmetic MTX to happen is to utilize extra possible labor time that couldn't be used elsewhere. I'd love to believe that any cosmetic MTX took no time or development from any other part of the game. I'd love to believe that no amazing visual design for armor or weapons was held because its more premium appearance would better fit a paid item than a free base game one.
But you'll never know that for sure. There will always be that inkling of cynical doubt that the cool item got a price tag and the okay one ended up in the base game. That the visual artists are so burnt making constant art for base game and then MTX that their energy couldn't be focused solely on the core experience. I can assume, I can take the company's word for it, but I'll never be able to cleanse my mind of the knowledge that it's a separate kind of content from the base game.
In another thread, someone brought up how Paradox games, while they do have tons of DLC, only advertise it on the Steam store, not any ingame ads. Would that still allow for the same kind of within-game, immersive, undistracted experience? I should maybe point out that Prey 2016 did have DLC, both for preorder bonus weapons you receive when you get to Morgan’s office, and for its Mooncrash campaign. I think it’s very possible and likely to enjoy a game like that both before, and after, having learned such things existed.
Personally, yeah, I find it much less offensive if the extra purchases do not nag you in-game and their presence is not missed or noticed in terms of affecting balance.
For example, Middle Earth Shadow of War infamously let you buy Uruks. Having played the fuck out of that game I can confidently say the game was balanced such that you never needed to do that (apart from the end game grind, but the grind is the gameplay, so if you hit end game and didnt want to grind, you just didn't wanna keep playing), but having it appear in the menus was jarring and the idea of buying an Uruk with real money juxtaposed next to the mechanical intent of obtaining Uruks through exploration, marking, stalking, and exploiting their weaknesses just stuck out like a cynical sore thumb.
If they put the Uruk purchases outside the game with no in-game ads and I played through Shadow of War and was like "man holy shit, my Uruks cannot keep up with the curve, this is insanely grindy" and I discovered that you could buy them and skip it, I'd say thats dastardly as well.
But the happy medium would be balancing it so it wasn't necessary, but providing an external purchase to milk that revenue if they really still wanted to. That example is moot now anyway since they eventually removed the MTX Uruks entirely.
There's still code work going in that's not going to get any extra money but the art work has to get extra money? I think that's worth talking about. Is (visual, audio, etc.) art less necessary? Should it be seen that way?
Of course, some companies sell patches (DLCs that fix long-standing bugs certainly exist). Maybe there's a kind of equality to come, code-work and art-work both getting exploited equally hard and wrung for every last cent.
I think there's a strong possibility you're correct, especially with that genre. When it comes to purely competitive games continual new content and adjustments keep the masses coming back, and providing those things long term with no monetization is a business suicidal idea, and I think that strong reasoning like that excuses a lot of the cynicism and bad faith behind MTX in those specific cases provided its still relatively fair.
I give you an A+ for an actual strong argument for MTX (in those and related cases)
Hur dur what a great addition to the discussion! May as well stick to Reddit and the meme forums if you’re not going to add anything of value to the comments.
I’m thinking of all the times I’ve said, “You know what makes this game great? The microtransactions.” All ZERO times.
There are bad games and good games. Microtransactions make bad games worse AND good games worse. I intentionally only pay for games without microtransactions. THEY move the game from “I’m interested” (like with the rerelease of dungeon keeper) to “Well, I can play the OG version on GOG. Without microtransactions, I’ll do that.”
That business model ONLY works out for the business. It is NOT for the best interest of the customer.
So while what you said is right, you are incorrect.
I’ve definitely often said “You know what makes this game possible, alive and updated regularly even years after release? Microtransactions!” They don’t just make (some) games better, they make (some) games even possible at all.
I’ve been able to play games (and apps) for free because of microtransactions and I assume you have as well. Most of the most popular games in the world are free thanks to microtransactions and allow millions of players to enjoy great games for free.
I have purposely bought microtransactions to support the developer because I’ve enjoyed the game so much and wanted to give back. You may not have, but that’s ok.
So no, to say that microtransactions just make a game bad is a very poor understanding of the issue. It’s incredible we can play some absolutely amazing games without having to pay a cent.
Please think a bit more critically about this issue instead of a knee-jerk reaction that microtransactions are bad.
“I’ve been able to play games for free because of microtransactions”
Microtransactions cost money, that’s not free. What you are saying here is you got to play a game without supporting the devs while OTHER people paid for microtransactions.
You assume incorrectly, I support devs by buying games, not supporting microtransactions.
“Most of the most popular games in the world are free…” First, like hell. Show me stats that support a claim that MOST popular games are free. Second, if a game is supported by microtransactions, you’re lying if you say it’s free. MICROTRANSACTIONS ARE NOT FREE.
Next “I have purposely bought microtransactions to support the developer…” I support the dev by buying the game.
Microtransactions make a good game bad, and bad games worse. None of what you said made an argument for microtransactions. Microtransactions encourage devs to hide fixes behind pay walls, even small ones.
My statements weren’t kneejerk. Your nonsense obviously wasn’t even thought through as it’s internally inconsistent.
So if we go by steam charts and other factors, the most played games are f2p yes. Fortnite, csgo and dota 2 are in the top 5. The top 2 spots are f2p. So yes, those are the most popular games and this isn’t even a peak time for them and they’re far more popular than a game like bg3.
A f2p game is by definition free. That’s the choice the devs made and whether it works or not is up to how good the game is and how enticing their microtransactions are. But yes - I do not have to spend any money to play them. The game is literally free. If someone else pays for an item and gives it to you, are you going to argue the item wasn’t free? It makes no sense.
Also, so they make fortnite worse? Dota 2 worse? Cs go worse? The answer is no, it makes zero difference. But they do make excellent games free. I don’t see how you could possibly argue that those games are bad purely because they have microtransactions. That’s the issue I have with your argument as it’s illogical.
Also, microtransactions encourage devs to hide fixes behind paywalls? This is flat out wrong when it’s purely cosmetic, and in most games I think it’s also wrong. You get powercreep issues which is an issue with those sorts of games, but I think that happens in any sort of long game (thinking card games in particular like hearthstone).
I think you are just playing bad games which is the issue, or just haven’t thought this through as I said.
If someone wants to spend thousands on microtransactions for cosmetics and enjoy it, then that’s their prerogative as well. Where it’s predatory it sucks, but otherwise I’ve gone down that hole and really enjoyed spending money on cool cosmetics or to enjoy a game more for a time. When I’ve had the money it’s made good games even more enjoyable, but I still loved the base game otherwise I wouldn’t be spending money on it.
We were talking about microtransactions. You jumped to free to play.
Not all games that have microtransactions are fre to play.
So you’ve lied again. Not as easy you thought.
What you need to do is grab ALL games with microtransactions. You need to grab stats on ALL free games. You need to grab stats on hidden cost games (also called free to play).
“Where it’s predatory it sucks” - The literal definition of microtransactions.
I think we’re done here. You think video gaming is what’s happened in the past ten years. I played my first video game in 1979 on an Atari 2600. I remember Pacman fever, I lived in California during it. I remember when Space Ace and Dragoons Lair came out in the arcades and cost .50 instead of a quarter…
Tell me again how I’m “just playing bad games…” You just can’t see the forest for the trees…
I don’t mind IAP purchases in any games but when I start up a game for the first time and the biggest for first option you see is to buy more stuff it makes me really annoyed . I just bought the game let me play it before tryung to sell me more stuff that I don’t want .
Every single F2P game with microtransaction would be better as a single-purchase game. The systems and progression used for monetization always detracts from the final result.
I say that as someone who plays Genshin Impact (much in the same way someone might have a drinking or smoking habit). The general concept of the gameplay, the aesthetics, worldbuilding and music are interesting, but it is made worse by the microtransactions. It makes the game duller that you need to grind specific missions endlessly, for retention, for levelling up and stats-boosting artifacts rather than just by general gameplay, exploring, beating monsters and doing quests. The game is balanced worse to incentive people to keep buying lootboxes to get better weapons, unlock stronger characters and unlock skills for them. There is no avoiding that because the game is structured so that it gets in your way.
I’m not against the expansion type of DLCs, and even new character if it’s priced fairly, and for a game like this to pay once, reasonably for new regions and characters would have made a vastly more fun, less tiresome game to play. It would have made it a game I would proudly recommend. But they would rather fleece thousands of dollars out of gambling addicts, so there is always a gross feeling that it is ultimately twisted and I’m a fool for getting back to it.
The systems and progression used for monetization always detracts from the final result
This, this, this! When is a company ever going to sell something and not encourage people to buy it? "Oh hey, if you wanna skip the grind you can just gimme $5 ;) " yeah sure, that grind is an important part of the game (being sarcastic here) that I'm skipping by bribing the company in charge of it.
wanders off mumbling instead of spouting more sarcasm at other forms
I have to mention the single game I know of that doesn’t follow the model. Path of Exile is completely F2P, all microtransactions are purely cosmetic. Some argue you need to purchase more stash tabs than the base four the game comes with, but I think if you’re playing enough to need more tabs, it may be worth it to buy.
For me, I wanted to supports the devs, so I have a ridiculous amount of skins, pets, and portals from supporter packs, which have no bearing on your character’s power or progress.
And there is a new league/expansion every three months for free. That’s why it’s been kicking Diablos arse for quality for years.
StarCraft is also F2P cosmetic only, as far as I remember. I haven’t played in about ten years though, before they went F2P so I could be wrong.
Mech Arena is F2P with some items behind a paywall, but it’s so few that you don’t really have to worry about it. It’s honestly a very simple and fun game without any need to pay. MAYBE I’ll run into a problem a few years from now when I’m so leveled up that I’m competing against people who put hundreds of dollars into the game, but it’s pretty clear that if that becomes a problem it’s a long way off.
The F2P model can be done wrong, and it can be done right.
I keep hearing good things about Path of Exile, though its a bit too complex for me. That might be one of the rare acceptable ones.
Focusing on cosmetics is generally the least offensive way to go about it although even that has its uglier side, such as Valve’s games relying on lootboxes and profiting from the trade of rare items at exorbitant prices. Whenever random chance and lootboxes are brought up, that is still targeting players with compulsive tendencies. All digital scarcity and rarity is artificial, after all. There is no reason why they couldn’t straight up sell an unlimited amount of sparkly hats and fancy gun skins. We could dismiss this as unimportant if it doesn’t affect the core gameplay but it’s still morally dubious if a game is being funded through the exploitation of a fraction of the audience.
There is another important caveat that cosmetics are not an issue as long as that is not a significant aspect of the game. Selling cosmetics in a Diablo-like is no big deal. Including cosmetic lootboxes in, say, Animal Crossing Pocket Camp, an All Ages game largely about decoration, is absolutely egregious, because in such a game there is no separating cosmetics from gameplay.
While I agree lootboxes are shite, and was dismayed when they brought them in, you can have them turned off in PoE if you have a compulsive/gambling issue (email support and they disable the purchase). Also, anything in a lootbox goes to the shop after the league ends, so you can just purchase the item. They also give a crap tonne of skins as challenge rewards for leagues, so you always be stylin’.
As for difficulty-- it has a steep learning curve! But once you get your sea legs (and later, Path of Building; free, community run) it’s impossible to go back to something like Diablo, imo. The intricacy and constant new leagues are the only reasons I’m still playing it seven years later :)
This is just demonstrably false. Half of the most played games might not even exist (anymore) if they were pay to play. Especially for multiplayer games, the barrier to entry means less people playing, which can mean the death of a game. The funding also means longer lasting updates, and the business model means the developers actually have a good reason to keep the game alive.
The prime example of a f2p game is Dota 2. No characters to buy, just cosmetics. Cosmetics you can get randomly by just playing, AND you can buy and sell on the second hand market for super cheap. That money has meant that the game kept getting updates and changes, all of which cost a fuckton of money.
Now, are many f2p concepts predatory? Sure, but so are trading card games marketed towards children, and nobody cared. And again, most games simply wouldn’t exist without F2P, DLC and/or microtransactions. People pretend like games “back in the day” lived forever without any DLC. That’s just not true.
You want to call it false at the same time you admit that these systems are predatory? You can’t do both at once. What you are really saying is that you believe the exploitation is worth the longevity.
If anything the cosmetics second hand market is proof that something is wrong, when people resell a skin for over a thousand dollars. No in-game item is worth that much, and people only convince themselves it is because their scarcity is controlled for financial gain.
Mind you, I said it myself DLC is fine when done properly so you are not even acknowledging the options that I’m mentioning. Games can be maintained without microtransaction. Your response isn’t even directed at me, but the vague sentiment that you get from the thread in general.
And even on their case, there is something to be said in favor of games you can host yourself indefinitely, rather than relying on company servers that are locked down to sell microtransactions. What good is a game that is updated for a few years and then is gone forever? Even the ones who supported it intently are left with nothing. That’s the fate of the majority of freemium games.
They have twitter, facebook, tiktok, discord links on their page, there’s preorders, collection editions and consoles related stuff. I don’t see links to directly buy the game, i don’t see linux support i don’t see source codes. No, every game developer company should not be like this. Fuck that shit actually.
It doesn’t seem like OP was talking about anything other than absence of MTX in a full-price, finished game. That seems like something very much to be encouraged.
They said the game were incomplete and it will be in (truly) in early access. This was written even in the games description back then. What did you expect from an early access game ?
It’s the precedent they set for the gaming industry that is appalling. This time it was “only” 3 years but what if it becomes the norm for games to be unfinished after 10+ years? Sure Larion Studios is a darling in everyone’s eyes because the game turned out well, but others will see this enormous positivety and think “hey as long as we finish it ‘eventually’, then it’s ok to do this.” This is bad for gaming in general.
Steam is riddled with Early Access games that were abandoned before ever reaching a final release. If you reach your financial goals before finishing the game, you'll get a bigger payout by moving on to another project than by keeping your promises. Users are outraged at first, but their memories are short-lived. Lather, rinse, repeat.
There are some notable exceptions, though. Kerbal Space Program comes to mind.
My argument is that companies shouldn’t charge full price for an unfinished game. Your argument is that the funding from early access could help the company develop the game. I believe a compromise would be to lower the price of the unfinished hand. It could be actual price=completion percent * full price. If they can’t do anything as fluid as that then at the very least there should be a significant flat reduction.
What I don’t like is the implication you made that since everyone is doing it, then it’s ok.
Teardown is a great example, can’t remember what I paid but it was cheap when the game only had half a dozen levels - it felt like a full game but s small one, then they added part two and a million mods got made and I think the price went up though it’s still reasonable
I was actually agreeing with you and in no way do I think it's ok because everyone does it. Rather, I'm very dismayed that everyone does it. Yes, it seems like a good idea on paper to use paid alpha and beta releases to fund development but the system has been shot to hell by the fact that the overwhelming majority of publishers who do this abuse it.
It was plastered all over the place that it was early access and I remember them warning everyone in a live stream that there would be bugs and such.
However, I will agree with you if they ditched paying an actuel QA team in favour of free early access players. I don’t have the answer to that though.
In that case, I have no calms with early access as long as expectations are managed and people aren’t led to believe the game is ready for launch. Which they did well.
Let’s hope they keep it this way for future games! I am not sure why this game got so much attention, games like this normally never draw this big of a crowd but I am happy it is. I am sad because I have to wait a month until the ps5 version drops but then again I’m also glad I am not waiting for the Xbox version either! It will definitely be a day one purchase just to support them as much as possible. Hope they sell enough to continue doing what they want.
The last DnD-based AAA game was like 15 years ago? People have been craving for this kind of game for years and had to satisfy themselves with remakes and ports until now.
BG1 and 2 are some of the most beloved CRPG games ever made. On reddit, the Baldur’s Gate sub was still very active and I would guess people were continuing to do full play-throughs at least once a year, myself included (and that’s like 20 years after BG1 came out). I don’t know of many other games with that kind of following, so I’m not surprised at the interest in BG3. Plus, it looks like the devs really took their time and delivered a great game at launch, which doesn’t really seem to happen much these days.
Add comment