This indie dev (Indie RPG Inkbound) is removing all microtransactions after noting that "player sentiment is trending against" them

TheOneWithTheHair@lemmy.world to Games@lemmy.world – 265 points –
This indie dev is removing all microtransactions after noting that "player sentiment is trending against" them
eurogamer.net
29

You are viewing a single comment

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

Didnt we used to do that by selling the game tho?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.