Now You Can Buy In-Game DLC And Pay It Off Later
-
I'm fine with it for f2p games. The monetization is sometimes awful in those, but it's also sometimes perfectly fine. I just want one monetization model. Either have microtransations and ingame purchases(preferably that don't actually effect the gameplay), or have your game cost money up front, and maybe have some DLCs. Pick one. No more $40 games with battlepasses and buyable skins.
Any product that can take one thousand dollars from someone, in exchange for what would typically earn a studio twenty dollars, is not differentiated by whether it has a cover charge.
The tolerable monetization model is: just sell games. They're not services - they're products. You buy them and own them.
-
Any product that can take one thousand dollars from someone, in exchange for what would typically earn a studio twenty dollars, is not differentiated by whether it has a cover charge.
The tolerable monetization model is: just sell games. They're not services - they're products. You buy them and own them.
Nothing inside a video game should cost real money. Ban the entire business model.
Is most of what I was referring to. I don't mind things in games costing money, as long as the game itself doesn't costs money. I also don't mind live service games, at least in concept. They're very rarely good games, but good examples do exist.
A lot of what I think you're talking about is based on player trading, is it not? Maybe I don't know the games you're talking about. I don't think Valve sets the prices for hats, and I don't think DE sets prices for rivens. They're tradeable, so a market forms. To be clear, I think paying $1000 for a hat is absolutely insane, but I also don't see how it's functionally different than paying an absurd amount of money for a trading card you have no intention of using.
Are there games actually asking $1000 for literally anything in-game? Not a player set price, to be clear.
-
Good to see someone took the scam of Lay Away and convinced an entire generation this is fine for things they will never own, even if they pay it off.
-
Nothing inside a video game should cost real money. Ban the entire business model.
Is most of what I was referring to. I don't mind things in games costing money, as long as the game itself doesn't costs money. I also don't mind live service games, at least in concept. They're very rarely good games, but good examples do exist.
A lot of what I think you're talking about is based on player trading, is it not? Maybe I don't know the games you're talking about. I don't think Valve sets the prices for hats, and I don't think DE sets prices for rivens. They're tradeable, so a market forms. To be clear, I think paying $1000 for a hat is absolutely insane, but I also don't see how it's functionally different than paying an absurd amount of money for a trading card you have no intention of using.
Are there games actually asking $1000 for literally anything in-game? Not a player set price, to be clear.
'I was only endorsing what you're condemning' is a baffling sentiment.
A lot of what I think you’re talking about is based on player trading, is it not?
None.
... you know that cost is cumulative, yes? Games that somehow trick people into spending a thousand dollars a month don't do it in one great lump.
-
Born just in time to finance horse armor.
Horse armor was above-board, compared to this shit. You got files you didn't have. Modern "DLC" is already on your hard drive, appearing on other people's characters, but you're not allowed to touch that file until you pay ten actual dollars.
-
'I was only endorsing what you're condemning' is a baffling sentiment.
A lot of what I think you’re talking about is based on player trading, is it not?
None.
... you know that cost is cumulative, yes? Games that somehow trick people into spending a thousand dollars a month don't do it in one great lump.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I'm not supporting what you're condemning. I'm just arguing that it's not 100% black and white. I disagree with "all live service games bad." I certainly agree that some are predatory and a problem, and the entire genre as a whole needs much more regulation.
I couldn't really grasp spending that amount of money on a video game, even cumulatively, so no I didn't consider it from that angle.
-
I'm not supporting what you're condemning. I'm just arguing that it's not 100% black and white. I disagree with "all live service games bad." I certainly agree that some are predatory and a problem, and the entire genre as a whole needs much more regulation.
I couldn't really grasp spending that amount of money on a video game, even cumulatively, so no I didn't consider it from that angle.
The regulation needed is: fuck all that.
Games make you value arbitrary nonsense. That is what makes them games. Attaching a dollar price to that fiction is a category error. The entire business model is an exploitation of that confusion.
This abuse is making games objectively worse. Maximum revenue comes from addiction and frustration. Fun is an obstacle. At best, fun is bait on the hook. The actual goal, especially for "free" games, is to grind you down as thoroughly as possible to extract real money over and over and over and over. If you don't think that's you - neither did most people who wondered where all their money went.
-
Uh nice! Good combination with all those social security number and credit card leaks.
-
This really is a new low - Get people hooked on your game with addictive mechanics. Suck the money out of them. When they're broke, drive them into debt
Not a new low, it's an old low applied in new ways.
-
now one BNPL provider has announced a deal with a gaming company to allow people to finance in-game purchases.
Great, another data leech for marketing machine
offers interest-free biweekly payment plans
Uh-huh. I wonder, what do they monetize on, if the debt is interest-free. Surely this is only to grow user base. No basket analysis at all...
