this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
65 points (97.1% liked)

Games

16651 readers
896 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Mortal Kombat 1 players are finding themselves quite upset this week following the announcement that paid Fatalities will soon be coming to the popular fighting game. With the last few Mortal Kombat installments, NetherRealm Studios has added paid content that players can choose to purchase outside of the main game. Not only has this additional content taken the form of DLC fighters and story expansions, but an in-game storefront has also been established that gives players new cosmetic options for various characters. Now, with Mortal Kombat 1, NetherRealm is tucking exclusive Fatalities behind a paywall too, and it's not going over well with fans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] harmonea@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While absolutely too many things are charged for in gaming today (exp boosts? skip potions? cheat armor that was already fully developed at launch? all ways to get your company on my high seas list).... in the specific case where (1) new content is continuously being developed AND (2) the game is not asking for mandatory spending to continue playing (e.g. no expansion pack to purchase, no subscription fees), I don't think the concept of charging for in-game content at all is abusive.

If I buy once and then a year later some optional paid cosmetics or other goodies are added, I think that's permissible. And if I'm in a free to play live service game, I recognize the ongoing dev costs need to get covered somewhere.

I do vastly prefer those companies that give their games TLC and updates for free, and I'm not saying the standard pricing for optional purchases in the modern market are reasonable. But I think the existence of in-game purchases, if not their current state, can make sense sometimes.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Free to play live service games" are a scam. They're built on an abusive business model, where addiction and frustration are the only way the game makes money. Fuck their costs. They spend that money because they know they can squeeze it back out of you, if you let them keep subtly disappointing you and dangling the option to open your wallet.

What you want is like saying casinos are okay if they just had better odds. It is an optimistic misunderstanding how this garbage works. All incentives point toward making you less happy, so you can pay them to fix that, but keeping you unaware and unwilling to quit. Charging real money doesn't just cost more for less content - it is making games objectively less enjoyable.

Maximum profit cannot come from a good game that's fun to play for an entire year. It comes from day-one fuckery, either gouging gentle enough to keep people from running scared, or gouging hard enough that their boycott counts for nothing.

[–] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Lmao you sure as hell talk a lot for having zero fucking clue what you're talking about

[–] harmonea@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're writing all live service games as being based on frustration when that absolutely isn't the case, so I have to think you have too many preconceived notions on this subject to actually be open to a conversation about it.

Oh well. No game is for everyone and sometimes the pay content is worth it just because it's damn awesome.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Frustration is the only reason people give them money. Fear of missing out, forced waiting, rolling the dice in vain - there's endless ways to make people want something and not get it. Directly monetizing that manufactured desire is an abuse of why anyone plays games.

If you're having fun without paying them, they're losing money. Or at best - you're the AI for paying players to treat like chumps.

I guess 'you just don't like it' goes on the list of reasons people make up instead of addressing the argument.

[–] harmonea@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Lol, instead of addressing what argument? Your argument is entirely "nuh-uh, you are frustrated. I know you are because my argument would fall apart if you weren't, so you are. It's just that you like being frustrated."

It's just not the case. There are rare good ones out there, and if that frustrates you into claiming I'm some masochist and therefore my enjoyment is somehow invalid, that's your own whole subscription of issues.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I named three unambiguously commonplace examples of what I'm talking about. Every single game that squeezes money out of people, over and over, uses some equivalent tricks. That's what squeezes the money out of people. If you can't deal with that and want to make up a conversation, have it with yourself and leave me alone.