so instead of charging 50+30+30 for everyone, you target a small subset of people who are gambling addicts?
3 Likes
Prcies should be just reasonable, but it’s a product in the end, not a charity. Speaking about prices - regional prices for DT - well, they aren’t reasonable. Atleast in my region DT standart edition price is like ~35% higher than BG3 or CP2077, so more than AAA.
Cosmetics prices are bad too, V2 has lower prices with higher quality.
Also, it’s a common player-friendly thing to make DLC content shareable, so you can buy 1 map pack and host it for your 3 friends.
1 Like
I would rather have the free content we are getting by far. Imagine having to pay for a new map pack… hello split playerbase. Gun variants? Hello pitchforks…
For all the cries of predation and exploitation, I think if we’re being objective Fatshark is one of the lesser offenders. I hate premium currencies but even I know that there are reasons for them to exist outside of shortchanging people. At there’s no pay to win.
Yes, we paid for early access. Yes, the game ‘launched’ but was still effectively early access. We all moaned but we knew it at the time. I’m glad that “wait a year” was only wait one year – in my opinion the game’s in the best state since launch.
I admit, cosmetics in games are very low on the list of things I care about in my gameplay experience. I don’t say that to detract from your enjoyment at all.
1 Like
almost forgot about that, but that was one reason i though of fatshark rather highly, only one person bought the DLC? no problem just host for everyone…
oh well
I would be far less annoyed if the game was free.
Look at TF2! It went F2P and has been chugging along for what, a decade and a half? All the while making bank off loot crates and cosmetics, and people don’t complain because the game is free.
As it stands the current system for cosmetics is really, really bad.
Gambling addicts, huh? Ohhhh you mean buying digital pants, which is a gamble because of how they might have clipping issues with your favorite top?
And to answer for real: yes, I would prefer that those with disposable income and a desire to look fly carry those of us who can’t afford more than the base game.
No argument there! I’d buy more fun, useless junk if it was cheaper!
VT2 did this 4 years ago. Who does this now? Genuinely curious, as nothing springs to mind for me.
I’m gonna call apples & oranges on this one. Team Fortress has very broad appeal and millions of players. Tide games are pretty hardcore and attract a very different audience.
Breadth vs. depth in more ways than one!
Look at TF2! It went F2P and has been chugging along for what, a decade and a half? All the while making bank off loot crates and cosmetics
Loot boxes are gambling. They are sick and they should not be within 1000 miles of children or young adults or goddang anyone.
Hey can we stop excusing companies that pull this garbage?
Yeah probably people who played the tide games had an idea of this but the game had something like 100k players on launch which aren’t coming back because they were expecting feature compleat and got early access.
They literally have a tool to release into early access which many games use rather than springing a 25% complete game (people can argue what % of the game we got on launch but it was incomplete) and then blaming people for not assuming basic ass features like crafting weren’t in on launch.
I’m tired of people giving games like Darktide or Payday 3 a free pass because “well they did it before so it’s ok now”. Literally be a man, do what the SST:extermination devs did, and if your game is effectively a Beta release it into early access. Oh sorry, I guess you can’t sell funny money then.
Edit:
Warhammer 40k is a broad appeal property that is mostly known for a tabletop game where rolling wrong can nuke your whole army and sone relatively hard turn based strategy titles. Acting like “L4D but 40k” doesn’t have broad appeal on 2023 is intensely silly.
2 Likes
Fair point, but I’m more trying to make a point about ‘ethical’ cash shops. A single skin costing something like $15 in funny money is not that, especially when the base game is at least $40. But if the base game is free and you have at least semi-reasonable prices on fancy pixels, people don’t complain nearly as much.
If DT pricing was $5 a skin and they had the full catalogue I’d probably have dropped $100 on it by now - I have a lot of disposable income and small purchases add up. But the way it’s designed…yeah. Not happening.
5 Likes
you can joke all you want, but the concept, of whaling exist for over two decades, and its well known that those people aren’t healthy.
there are tons of people who took loans, lost their Cars/house because they spiraled out of control, or are just too young to make reasonable financial choices.
extreme cases yes but nonetheless
the reason why you don’t have a clear price tags but atificial money conversion is to veil how much you actually spending.
so yes i rather have people not being able to play some content due to a financial struggle, rather than destroyed livelyhoods, i know selfish of me…
3 Likes
I’m not excusing any company. Just stating a fact!
EDIT:
OK, because I’m not one for silly acting, I’m gonna get some numbers from steamcharts.com. 30 day averages for games I can think of that are similar to TF2/Tide…
Darktide: 14k
Vermintide: 4k
Left 4 Dead 2: 23k
Team Fortress 2: 68k
GTFO: 800
Back 4 Blood: 2k
Counter Strike 2: 700k
It would seem that “L4D but 40K” doesn’t even have the appeal of L4D… it’s no surprise to me that tide games have a more niche audience than the really popular titles due to their complexity and specific style (heck, even system requirements factor in).
And this isn’t even touching on how much more pushing premium currency would factor in to a free-to-play model for this game!
Was in Killing floor 2 also.
I don’t know, maybe noone even. But considering there are drama after drama in modern gaming industry, like that shitshorm with CA and Total War dlc recently, well… perhaps being player-friendly isn’t a bad thing.
Overall i don’t rly care. If milking whales are going good so far and Fatshark can drop free updates.
To be fair you can’t meaningfully spend that much money in Darktide… and when you spend the money you are getting a thing, not a chance at a thing…
If they sold ordos dockets on the other hand, now we’re rolling! I don’t think anyones re-negotiating their mortgage over the latest Ogryn t-shirt though…
I understand gambling is an issue. Fatshark isn’t completely innocent of not hooking into the gambling mentality. It’s not crossing a line with me, so I’m still here.
2 Likes
Yet…
maybe their slowass releases are good for something afterall
I fully agree with you here – I’m not about to spend that much money on an in-game cosmetic, pretty much ever. $5 and I’d be on board. $1 and they better sell closet space!
Trouble is, the economists beg to differ. I respect FS’s decision to charge what they charge, and in return I feel like they respect my decision to not give them any more money. No pop-ups, no problem!
Ethics? What they want to charge is their business. What I want to pay is mine. How they conduct themselves is a concern to me when I’m frequently engaging with their service.
As a Darktide player, I don’t feel as if I’m being manipulated, harassed or insidiously pushed towards buying Acquilas. Basic ethics, check.
Offering acquilas instead of direct purchase makes sense on an international game. I can forgive that.
Acquilas don’t always line up 1:1 with their product offering. Slightly manipulative and in my opinion scummy – you straight up don’t need to do this. For this alone, I don’t want to buy a single acquila.
However, on my morals…
This sales strategy is not limited nor was it pioneered by FS. Of all premium currencies, it’s in my opinion on the more tolerable side of the scum spectrum. It’s shady but it doesn’t cross a personal line for me to the extent that I will not engage with the company (see: Blizzard).
True, I tolerate a bit of corporate slime. Maybe that makes me a lost cause, but I gets by…
1 Like
Nonnnnnnne of this tracks! And please, let me explain:
What you are describing is – and I think most people would agree – two different things:
-
There is whaling and there are whales, who are people who will spend BIG money on things in video games. Things like fancy functionally-useless pants that cost way too much money. Companies over-inflate prices as far as they are able to still appeal to a few regular folks while also giving whales more opportunities to spend BIG on their games. You can argue that high prices are ethically wrong, but I feel that’s just economics, what the market will bear.
-
Then there is gambling and there are gambling addicts, who some game companies prey on by offering absolutely disgusting things like loot boxes. They take people’s money for a chance at a big reward. THAT is the unethical part of it, and that is what the gamblers play for: the thrill of a win and the reinforcing cycle of losses. In my book, and it seems yours too, gambling is a disease. And to leverage that disease to extract money from people is wrong.
But Fatshark isn’t doing the latter. There is not a paid gambling system in the game. If they ever introduce one, they’ll have my fury. But right now, all they offer are over-priced pants for whales who have the want to buy them. Should they offer no cosmetics, since some people have poor impulse control? And should they offer no paid content, since some people have poor impulse control? Should there be no candy in the world either?
And, to just get extra silly here for a second, if anything Fatshark should be applauded for their cludgey crappy premium store because it has kept SO many dollars in SO many pockets. Even The Dayman admits he would have parted with a large sum if given the chance. Bless the large fish for knowing this about their audience and forcing them to be patient…hopefully by the time some real god-tier stuff comes out (with no clipping!) everyone will have abandoned the game to spend their money on better things!
1 Like
shrugs
Your call or not. But you don’t get to determine how others feel, and my take is that there’s ways to do a cash shop and player retention that aren’t scummy and manipulative, and Fatshark isn’t doing them because being scummy and manipulative is a bit better for short-term profit.
3 Likes
im aware i lumped the two together, because it makes virtaully no difference wether or not you are a an:
- “unhealthy individual” in the form of an gambling addict,
- “unhealthy individual” as in Whale
- “unhealthy individual” as in a person with poor impulse control
i make no distinction, i won’t put someone who “just exploits a little” on a pedestral over someone who goes all in on it.
is Fatshark better than the far worse offenders like EA bethesda blizzard wargaming or god forbid gachagames? yea sure why not. . .
doesn’t mean i’ve got one ounce of respect for Fatsharks practices
funny that the guy who ends up with saying “we’re moving in a cycle” is asking already answered obsolete questions…
i already told you how i view this “new” development.
“its just cosmetics, not power” is just the newest ca*cer the gaming indusries can get away with.
Games should be about FUN not siphoning of money.
As soon as you got a suit explaining how to monetise your fanbase in the company, the entire company is a lost cause in my book…
you see it all over the industry,
A visonary comes up with a great idea for a game-> game grows as a result->
company grows in size-> one game becomes an IP → large company attracts shareholders who install business men → IP becomes Stale and repetitive and feels souless → the Visonary leaves as his lovechild isn’t what it used to be
AND IF THE FANBASE IS LUCKY-> visonary starts a new company coming up with a fresh idea repeating the cycle
and you might say, the market proves them right, and you’d be correct they do make bank, but let me ask you, how many of the new era AAA games will remain for decades in the minds of its fanbase?
i think you are an “older” gamer like me, and like me you probably have games you occasionally return to, and i bet you none of those fall under the belt of the BIG media giants (at the time of their creation).
im at least certain, that all the games that came out this year i won’t touch ever again in 5 years safe for just a couple few.
2 Likes
What’s funny is that you removed did not include the question immediately after that one, which brings my point into focus:
And should they offer no paid content, since some people have poor impulse control?
If you think that offering cosmetics, a product, for a set price (even one obfuscated by a single layer of funbux) is exploiting people who may not have the power to resist, then how does that argument not stand for offering content, also a product, for a set price? I see no difference.
If you want to say that the funbux existing is scummy because it hides the true dollar amount, you can argue that. And if you want to say only getting 1.5 months to decide if you want a pair of pants is exploitative, you can. You could even argue that the bundles offering a discount on multiple items is scummy.
But this isn’t food or water. These are entertainment products. The fact that cosmetics are on offer is simply NOT predatory.