• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    6911 months ago

    Please, please, please just make gambling-focused monetization models illegal. This shit literally just exists to prey on those with poor impulse control and should not have gotten away with existing as long as it has.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2111 months ago

      We need to get back to the old days, where you bought a game and that was that. I don’t mind paying additional for DLC later on, but only if it adds to the game. Not any of this loot box/character clothing/additional cars/shark card bullshit.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          No, not really. I mean if you want to give me them as additional bonuses or whatever, without any real world cost, then no harm no foul. But it’ll be a cold day in hell when I spend real world money on virtual clothing for a character in a video game. Ditto with cars (excluding the game itself).

          • DreamySweet
            link
            fedilink
            011 months ago

            What about for games where clothing and cars are the point of the game?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  111 months ago

                  I mean, exactly how it use to function. Release a new game. If there is really enough content to warrant a paid product, just put that into the next title. Instead what we are getting is developers excluding content from the base game to release it a year later for a quick buck.

                  • DreamySweet
                    link
                    fedilink
                    111 months ago

                    What is the difference, other than the pricing, between content being excluded from the base game and sold a year later as an expansion and content being excluded from the base game to be sold as a different game a year later? Why is one okay and not the other? Why is the one that is cheaper for consumers the bad one?