"Hey come pay yesteryear's AAA title price for a game that's been overpromising and underdelivering for the better part of the past two decades" is not the sales pitch you think it is...
Sunk cost fallacy is a bitch. One must be severely delusional to think that after paying however much you did AND waiting for 12+ years, having a barely playable alpha when the original timeline was for a 2015 release AND it's still being promised for a 2027 release (which, given the state of the alpha, is likely to be missed too), this is in any way acceptable.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
That’s an absolutely obscene ask for a game that has no prospects of being finished in the foreseeable future – let alone that it intentionally puts you at a disadvantage to players who paid hundreds of euros for this stupid piece of shit grift.
cole@lemdro.id 21 hours ago
nah it’s not pay to win. it’s not hard to earn in-game money and buy ships with that
drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 seconds ago
If you can skip that process by paying real money, and the things you unlock are gameplay affecting upgrades, then that’s pay-to-win. That’s what the phrase originally meant before being diluted by morons. Non pay-to-win microtransactions are purely cosmetic.
Not that people should be playing any game that’s infested with a microtransaction funding model. Let alone one with a base price of $45, let alone one with absolutely absurd “micro”-transactions meant to prey on mentally ill people, let alone one that’s already taken people’s free money only to implement all of the above.
At one point in time horse armor was enough cause controversy. How did it all go so wrong?
ripcord@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Eh,depending on which state the “economy” is in, it can be pretty hard. There’s threads all over spectrum about how Grundy and broken things always are.
If there was much game to actually win, I would definitely call it pay to win.