So many people don't get this. Case in point: the latest Gundam game. The game is completely free, only a couple characters and some pointless cosmetics cost money. The characters you could get for $20 and the cosmetics were not bad either, not even 1/10th as bad as something like Dota or Valorant. And yet people still complained about the monetization like crazy. It's almost like the people making the game aren't working for free and actually need to make money at some point...
Comment on Every game developer company should be like this
illi@lemm.ee 11 months ago
For single player games, sure. For games with co-op, sure. But I can understand multiplayer lifeservice games, MMOs/MMO-lites and similar to have in game stores (with reasonable pricing).
Nefyedardu@kbin.social 11 months ago
spamfajitas@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I sure hope people enjoyed those purchases for the year they’re getting to use them: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/gundam-evolution-is-shutting-down-in-november-a-year-after-release/1100-6516136/
Nefyedardu@kbin.social 11 months ago
Yeah that's exactly my point. There wasn't much monetization to begin with and what little there was got criticized to death. Nobody wants to buy cosmetics in a game surrounded by that much negativity because they can lose it if the game dies. It's an impossible environment to make money in.
Skellexon@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Understandable but I would rather pay for the game where I can unlock shit by playing the game and not have any ingame purchases than a free game with cosmetics and skins and stuff I have to pay for. Even if it’s online. I would even pay monthly (like WoW) as long as there are no ingame purchases
Nefyedardu@kbin.social 11 months ago
I would too. But charging upfront for a multiplayer game is pretty much a recipe for disaster these days. Subscription model I can't imagine would be popular either. It's better to eliminate barriers to entry in a game that relies on a big player pool, game pass helps a bit but not much.
Stahlreck@feddit.ch 11 months ago
If the games are F2P…sure.
Yet here we are. Look at for example WoW of FF14. Full price expansions, monthly sub AND ingame cash shop. Ridiculous.
illi@lemm.ee 11 months ago
I agree games should pick between subs and in game stores. But i can see why buy to play could not be enough for live service games.
Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 11 months ago
As long as things can be earned without spending a buck
kameecoding@lemmy.world 11 months ago
to me it’s a bit more complicated.
even if it’s a multi-player game like Dota 2, even though their item are purely cosmetical and arguably have 0 competitive advantage. their method of selling is still predatory ad fuck, lots of lootboxes for exploiting gambling addiction, limited availability stuff to trigger FOMO.
that’s fucking shite.
r1veRRR@feddit.de 11 months ago
With the second hand market, Dota 2 (and CSGO) are LITERALLY excatly like trading card games. Noone gave a fuck for years about those. Hell, of all “predatory” systems, Dota 2 is the absolute most fair, most tame one. The only realistic alternative are 20 dollar skins, like with Overwatch 2.
kameecoding@lemmy.world 11 months ago
plenty of skins are not tradeable in dota2 and were exclusive to a given time period.
trading cars games are predatory too
illi@lemm.ee 11 months ago
You are right, totally. There is monetization, and there is monetization. Not all systems are equal. Maybe because I didn’t play any games with lootboxes lately I could moarly forget about them.