4 ms·

My kids get a weekly allowance, however, they’re not allowed to spend it on in-game transactions. Once a year, on Christmas, they get $40 they are allowed to sp

by jmpman 6y ago

My kids get a weekly allowance, however, they’re not allowed to spend it on in-game transactions. Once a year, on Christmas, they get $40 they are allowed to spend on digital rewards - Fortnite vbucks are their typical choice. I see the manipulation happening to these kids, and the bad habits it forms. Not to mention how it’s destroying gaming. I’m sentimental for the days when you could drop $60 on a game with a great offline experience, and a online multiplayer world, without additional pay to play.

imtringued 6y ago
> I’m sentimental for the days when you could drop $60 on a game with a great offline experience, and a online multiplayer world, without additional pay to play. There is no shortage of such games.
- tschwimmer 6y ago
  While there is a large catalog of such games that exist historically, I feel like mainstream AAA and nearly AAA developers have largely abandoned this model. Good standalone experiences do come out, but they're the exception at this point and I imagine their marketshare is declining. They're just less profitable (and probably harder to make) than live service games.
  - Bakary 6y ago
    The market for shorter single-player games by smaller studios is amazing however.
- jsmith45 6y ago
  I'd posit the of issue is wanting both an online world and offline game as is the problem. There are still non-world online included with games with significant offline content that have no MTX (although some does have MTX too). And there is still plenty of offline only games not infested with MTX, often with no paid DLC, or only sensible expansions that are very much optional purchases. But online worlds that are not designed to continuously extract money from people seem to have become pretty infrequent, whether shipped with an offline game or not. And to be honest, I'm not surprised. Unlike matchmaking and the like, the online world type multiplayer tend to require a lot more server resources. Without MTX or subscriptions, I bet a lot of online worlds would get shut down by 24 months after game release, simply due to exhausting the portion of the game sales allocated to running the servers by that point.

by jmpman 6y ago

imtringued 6y ago

> I’m sentimental for the days when you could drop $60 on a game with a great offline experience, and a online multiplayer world, without additional pay to play. There is no shortage of such games.

tschwimmer 6y ago
While there is a large catalog of such games that exist historically, I feel like mainstream AAA and nearly AAA developers have largely abandoned this model. Good standalone experiences do come out, but they're the exception at this point and I imagine their marketshare is declining. They're just less profitable (and probably harder to make) than live service games.
- Bakary 6y ago
  The market for shorter single-player games by smaller studios is amazing however.
jsmith45 6y ago
I'd posit the of issue is wanting both an online world and offline game as is the problem. There are still non-world online included with games with significant offline content that have no MTX (although some does have MTX too). And there is still plenty of offline only games not infested with MTX, often with no paid DLC, or only sensible expansions that are very much optional purchases. But online worlds that are not designed to continuously extract money from people seem to have become pretty infrequent, whether shipped with an offline game or not. And to be honest, I'm not surprised. Unlike matchmaking and the like, the online world type multiplayer tend to require a lot more server resources. Without MTX or subscriptions, I bet a lot of online worlds would get shut down by 24 months after game release, simply due to exhausting the portion of the game sales allocated to running the servers by that point.