3 ms·
The problem I have with these games is they are almost universally tuned to make them very time consuming and grindy if you don't pay. That is, instead of the
by dkersten 5y ago
The problem I have with these games is they are almost universally tuned to make them very time consuming and grindy if you don't pay.
That is, instead of the game being balanced for what feels good to play, they are balanced so that they feel good when you pay more and otherwise are not so annoying that you quit, but annoying enough to push you to pay.
Its not: here's a good game, but you can buy these things with real money. Its: here's a game that we purposely made a bit too time consuming and annoying, but you can buy these "time savers" to make it be fun all the time instead. Any game that sells real-money "time savers" is by definition a badly balanced game. The solution to a badly balanced game that becomes tedious is not to sell "time savers" (or skips: "buy the tank now and skip the grind for it"), its to rebalance the game to remove or reduce the tedium.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoThat is just certain games that rightfully have a bad reputation, not all F2P games. As others said, in rocket League or Fortnite you don't get advantages from buying things. You can buy levels in Fortnite, but they only unlock cosmetics.
- dkersten 5y agoIt depends on the game. If cosmetics are the only (or primary) reward a game offers, then I still feel that it matters. If cosmetics are a purely orthogonal thing, then I agree that its not an issue.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoFortnite only has cosmetics as rewards if you buy the battle pass, which costs less than 10$ for a season that usually lasts about 3 months. That is less than for example World of Warcraft used to cost, which was more like 15$/month (iirc). It is an ongoing massively multiplayer game which also incurs server costs, so I don't think asking for a voluntary subscription is too much.
- dkersten 5y agoWithout having tried it myself, that does sound pretty reasonable in Fortnite's case.