It’s called DLC or expansions in the old day, not subscription. As not purchasing it wouldn’t stop you from playing the previous content you brought.
The cosmetics are completely optional. You don’t have to buy them, and at $40 (or less) you get way more than your money’s worth for this game, especially if you were to buy it now. Hundreds, if not thousands of hours worth of gameplay with (although VERY slow) free updates. You should be grateful that there are people willing to pay money to keep the devs going while you have the freedom not to.
Who the F, mentioned anything about paying £15 a month?
Do people not actually read? Did I say subscription? Have you not seen my lamenting of pandering to subscription models?
£15 or so for expansions/DLC that include several maps, new cosmetics, weapons and features.
It’s optional to buy, so if you don’t get it you can still play what you have paid for.
Players will play if you release good stuff… Look at L4D2 player numbers… How old is that.
I didn’t respond to you, Skippy.
1 Like
Simple - selling maps divides the playerbase - selling skins doesn’t. If you can fund new maps via MTX that is a good thing.
So in contrast to what you claim there are actually no losers when MTX are done right
Players who are ready to pay for bling bling get bling bling - win
Devs have a constant stream of income to pay their bills - win
Investors see their investment returned with profit - win
Players who are unwilling to pay for bling bling get free maps that are funded by MTX - win
I have problems with how MTX are implemented in DT, but that they are there makes perfect sense.
4 Likes
Wow!!
What a truly awful take, seriously. I shouldn’t be grateful at all, games are become micro-transaction hell, because people keep reinforcing this abhorrent money making scam.
If mugs didn’t keep handing money over, hand over fist constantly giving the green light to investors to keep doing this they would;
-
Feck off and let game development go back to those that care about the product.
-
Force them to rethink their strategies and embrace healthy strategies like fairly price expansion/DLC content, and other merch.
But it wont happen, because of people like you with too much air between the ears.
No…
People will buy the new levels and all included if they like the game enough. If you can afford to pay £35 for the full game, I am sure they can afford to pay £15 every now and then for new content.
I don’t buy cosmetics in Darktide, although I rarely buy cosmetics in any game.
They are expensive.
I don’t like how they look.
I feel like they are low quality and lazy. (Last 2 are subjective)
It is a rotating stock.
It has a digital currency.
They don’t allow color customization so they can sell reskins.
There are only 2 free weapon skins available in the game, although 4 weapons got a 3rd one in the penance bar.
And that’s it. Pretty open and shut case for me.
Considering it took them like 9 months to deliver 2 ‘map packs’ for VT2, one of which was literally a collection of ported VT1 maps but without Wizard’s Tower, and charged for them…I’m not sure we’re familiar with the same company. Over a period of time 3 times that duration they delivered almost 5 times as much content, with only one more paid expansion. Clearly we get more bang for our buck when its not given.
I would be way more grateful if those people werent unprincipled automatons and I could just pay for content updates like back in the day. Alas, people actually do buy premium cosmetics in unfinished games, which is more profitable, so devs do that instead while coasting the game along with minimal actual dev expenditures.
Just because it makes the company more money doesn’t mean it’s better for the consumer.
1 Like
I do have to agree.
Subscriptions work for bigger games like Stellaris, for MMOs, or for games built around ‘expansion’ models.
Tide games are niche. But they also kinda need to be monetized in SOME way for the dev model they have. Out of every possible monetization model, it being strictly drip is just fine - it’s how they’ve tried to make that problem work that is the issue.
1 Like
I agree to some extent. Personally for Vermintide their monetization of paid skins was mostly okay. I just didn’t like how expensive their skins were compared to competitors. I’ll never understand why they threw that out to instead go for the RNG fest that is their storefront for Darktide.
But Stellaris isn’t a “subscription” type game, right? They continually come out with dlcs and expansions but they are not required to play the game.
And in general dlc/expansion is better for singleplayer than multiplayer.
3 Likes
I’m pretty sure Tencent’s multimillion share in their company vastly supersedes the $20 you spent on a helmet cosmetic. If you think the amount of money you throw at them should decide how important you are, then buy out a controlling share in their company if you want that kind of priority.
1 Like
They’ve just added a subscription service to address the ‘we have five billion DLCs so the cost to play the game at full potential is like $300 upfront’ problem.
1 Like
Holy basdo.
That’s crazy, I didn’t know that. I really don’t know how to feel about it tbh.
1 Like
I prefer to pick and choose my experience for the most part, but acknowledge that the subscription approach is probably better for how Paradox likes to develop games.
2 Likes
Me too. That’s why I support honest indie studios that don’t try to screw me over with additional costs. Like:
Exanima:
Age of Decadence:
Knights of the Chalice:
Secrets of Grindea:
Battle Brothers:
Honest games with honest, hardworking, developers.