• blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    will now be turned into cosmetic-only optional “supporter packs” DLCs sold on Steam.

    so…they’re not removing all microtransactions

    • Glide@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Yeah, the headline is just awful. The Inkbound Dev notes that they’re removing all in-game microtransactions. The goal is to move away from pressuring you to spend money on microtransactions as you play, and keep them where they belong: on the store page.

      The devs are doing exactly what they said. The headline is either click-bait, or a result of awful reading comprehension.

    • Wild_Mastic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s just cosmetics, I don’t see the problem. They have to make money for food in some way or another.

        • AnonTwo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          We also didn’t expect ongoing development of games after they were shipped though, aside from bug fixes (sometimes even then )

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            9 months ago

            But… Like… Did we ask for that? If you cant afford to keep developing a game after shipping it… Dont?

            Just make the game, wrap it up finished, and let me buy it. It doesnt need to be a subscription, I dont need to play it for 6 years, you can move on with your life and design a different game.

            Ill pay cash, just give me the whole game for crying out loud

            • Quokka@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yes?

              Do you not remember when a title would get released and stay in a buggy state forever rendering the game useless?

              Have you never enjoyed a game so much that you wanted more content for it

              I don’t want a product that’s going to go stale the second I buy it, I want a game I can play for 10 years with new content being added to keep it fresh.

              • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Let me guess, you think movies should just be perma running live streams?

                Calling a game “stale” for not having an unending stream of spectacle creep is a wild opinion. Its a game, not a lifestyle. Not ending is why so many games are shit now. Because they dont stop when theyre good, they stop when its become too bad to play, and everyone leaves.

                Enjoying a game so much you want more content was, and still is, filled just fine from dlc and sequels. The best part? They dont require permanently altering what you thought was good, so if theyre trash you still have the original.

            • Ech@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              But… Like… Did we ask for that?

              Most of the gaming community did, yes. Players want servers that last forever and updates that never stop, and they’ll throw a hissy fit if it costs them a cent more up front than it did 30 years ago. I’m not a fan of it either, but it’s where the industry is right now.

              • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                More importantly people don’t want to buy into closed game environments. They promise of ongoing development attracts players that want that type of scale, and also allows devs to continue to eat. It’s a win/win.

                This is the right choice by devs. I haven’t played it and honestly I probably never will, but I respect the decision.

            • JimmyMcGill@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              You can also just not buy the game if it has micro transactions. It’s the same V logic

              • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                This is a non argument, and a waste of time to type

                Obviously I can not buy things, congratulations, well done.

                We are talking about the games being made each year, though, which are made regardless of if I buy them personally.

            • Rbnsft@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Well games used to not have Servers and be peer to peer they did not have season where New content got Put in or if they got New content they Split the Player Base Because they Sold the New maps, classes etc. So selling cosmetics and giving away the New classes maps etc is actually great. So that way the person not spending much gets New content and the person that love the game can Support them more. At the Same time Yes time is spend on Those skins etc and not New stuff but What would you like. A game being shut down and not being play able like battleborn? Or a game that gets New stuff but also New cosmetics?

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Its not a free game. Im not necessarily hating on cosmetic microtransactions, but they are microtransactions and theyve claimed to remove all of them.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          They did not make that claim. The article is just wrong. The devs said they’re removing in-game monitization and only having DLC on the store page. It’s functionally identical I assume, but there’s less pressure on players playing the game.

  • clearleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    It doesn’t matter if a game with microtransactions makes them easier to get or even free. If a game was designed with microtransactions in mind, the game has to be made tedious, grindy, and/or or frustrating completely on purpose to incentivize buying things.

  • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’ve never heard of this game before now, but I really liked Monster Train.

    I checked it out and it looks like a lot of fun. With the news they’re removing monetization I picked up a copy.

    • raydenuni@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t think you’ll regret it. Shiny Shoe knows what they’re doing in terms of design and Inkbound is phenomenal. They’ve been making solid improvements throughout EA.

  • chameleon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    The badness this game had at launch really can’t be overstated, though. At launch, this was a paid early access always online mostly-singleplayer-with-coop game with a premium currency shop and a battle pass. And it was one of those games where the shop was the most fleshed out part.

    They’ve added offline mode and are now reworking the microtransactions to Steam DLC, but I’m still very skeptical of them. That launch was so blatantly over the top bad.

    • raydenuni@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I ignored all the mtx stuff, which was pretty easy, and have had a blast with co-op. I can’t think of anything else that comes close to this in terms of meaningful synergies with friends. And Shiny Shoe has proven they know how to use EA to turn out a good product with Monster Train so I wouldn’t give up on them quite yet.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Microtransactions in general are the reason I avoid the majority of games like the plague, if you have to purchase the title and it’s on PC. The only exceptions I accept is the one RPG series I play and the spin-off auto chess card game. They have it figured out, at least, that shoving the paid features down your throat is bad for the player.