As long as cosmetics can also drop as part of playing the game, I don’t care if the shop’s charging people $25 for a gear set, because I don’t need to buy it.
As long as cosmetics can also drop as part of playing the game, I don’t care if the shop’s charging people $25 for a gear set, because I don’t need to buy it.
Wouldn’t an ethical issue also be how viable getting the item in-game actually is? Like if it takes around 4000 hours but you can buy it for a buck that might as well be inaccessible in-game
Personally, I am okay with there being cosmetic content that is entirely unattainable without a cash purchase, so long as there is still cosmetic content attainable without microtransactions and the purchased content doesn’t yield any other advantage.
I can accept that I can’t have everything without buying it, far more than I could accept the standard price of a video game going up to $100-$120.
LOZ TOTK is only £50ish though, and that’s a fully fledged 60 ish hour game with tons of content, how can we accept the argument ‘it’s too expensive to make games’?
Two massive differences between TOTK and Diablo 4 though - TOTK is not intended as a live service game with (presumably) years of intense support and extended development post launch, and TOTK is a first party game developed by the most successful video game console company to ever exist - meaning it’s an investment into selling more of their consoles. But mainly the first one. Diablo 4 is going to have seasons of content and according to one developer, 2 DLCs and prolonged support. So it’ll probably end up costing an order of magnitude more than TOTK to produce/support.
I feel these ‘seasons of content’ have limited value, it’s much better to produce something fully functional in the first place. We’ve all gotten used to paying more for less. Of course we can say ‘constant purchases is more profitable for studios’ but does that mean we should accept it? I’ve never been impressed by live service games.
My engagement with them varies from game to game, honestly. For me, the decision to spend extra money on a game I’ve purchased boils down to whether I enjoy the game enough to make it feel worth the money to me. I’ll ask myself if I will feel like I’ve gotten $20’s worth of fun out of it - which might be a crappy question to have to ask myself given that we used to buy games once and be done paying, but that’s where we’re at with the industry.
As it sits with Diablo 4 specifically, though, a cosmetic-only cash shop is something I can peacefully coexist with. I’d rather there be no microtransactions, because I’m not an Activision shareholder, but if there’s going to be some, let them be for optional content only. Besides which, the non-paid gear looks cool as hell to begin with.
To me, whenever I have to put in more cash after the initial purchase I pretty much feel exploited. Not saying I never buy DLC but often what you get in DLC is nowhere near comparable to the hard work put in by mod developers who aren’t getting paid at all (eg HOI IV). I think things will just keep getting worse unless governments put a stop to it.
You’re probably right there. Unfortunately, at least in the US, our government is still largely controlled by people who were born before the cordless phone was invented, or damn near it. They’re still learning how to send an email with an attachment, so it’ll be a while before they’re made to care about microtransactions.
True. It’s not like microtransactions are the biggest issue with our world to begin with, I just see them as a symptom of the complete drive towards nightmare rentier capitalism where nobody will own anything except the hyper rich and we’ll all have to pay subscription fees for every little service in our lives.