Curious what the smaller group here thinks of the way the newest content release is handling monetization, primarily the shift into gating quests behind moonstones. I’m not real sure what I think about it and keep fluctuating back and forth between irritated about paying for the game and then being expected to continue paying for content, and finding it pretty par for the coruse for modern games and thus about as inoffensive as microtransactions are capable of being.
I think I’ve settled on it being inoffensive, at least in terms of microtransaction models. Admittedly I’m also the kind of idiot who has paid $25 for a pretty mount or two on World of Warcraft regardless of having paid for the game and each expansion, but eh. There seems to be a lot of angst surrounding it and I do understand why.
What are you guys’ thoughts on all this?
I will spend some money on this game regularly if it brings fun to the table regularly. I however, will NOT spend $15 for another quest line like the dapper wall-e line. Wall-e is probably the only character I’d do that for. I’d probably spend $5 without huge regrets.
I’d also be wary of spending any form of subscription model until they get their QA sorted out. Every release has some pretty unacceptable bugs. (companions blocking your way, all the passion lily’s being red, dark castle portals being so far in front of the doors you have to go fish, the true random on scrooges shop) I understands the occasional putting a fishing target on land too much but their QA/Dev team sizes are WAY to big to let this kinda change go out, especially considering they don’t hotfix.
I’d probably spend $5 without huge regrets.
Same. I think a quest costing nearly as much as the base game was probably what caused the kneejerk negative reaction, for me at least. I don’t mind paying a bit for bonus content, I would just prefer that the price reflected the quality and/or extensiveness of the content being paid for. I don’t feel it did. It’s very cute, don’t get me wrong, but I fall in line with the folks asserting that the pricing was off.
It does seem to be an unusually buggy game, even for Early Access. I had no idea they didn’t hotfix. Explains a lot about the bizarrely long duration of some of the more basic bugs and issues.
deleted by creator
This doesn’t come off unhinged to me. Microtransactions represent a legitimately toxic shift in the way games approach earning profit. I don’t think having a strong opinion on it is unreasonable, and it’s probably worth admitting that there’s a significant chunk of my “eh, whatever” viewpoint that’s informed by the practice just being so common today, which is honestly a whole 'nother can of worms that I might benefit from prying open at some point.
I think our (I’m making some assumptions about age bracket!) generation tends to be the most unhappy about microtransactions because we grew up in gaming during a time when it was an expectation that when you bought a game it was complete, had been bug tested, and having paid for it meant that it belonged to you. The company couldn’t come into your house and take away what you bought at some later date; the idea of that would have been preposterous. We’ve gone from buying games to renting access. It haasn’t been a healthy shift for the consumer.
What’s history with Gameloft, curiously? I’m gathering it’s been especially egregious with this sort of thing? Googling it netted me this on the topic, which was a decent read.
deleted by creator
