• GrindingGears
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    We need to get back to the old days, where you bought a game and that was that. I don’t mind paying additional for DLC later on, but only if it adds to the game. Not any of this loot box/character clothing/additional cars/shark card bullshit.

      • GrindingGears
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, not really. I mean if you want to give me them as additional bonuses or whatever, without any real world cost, then no harm no foul. But it’ll be a cold day in hell when I spend real world money on virtual clothing for a character in a video game. Ditto with cars (excluding the game itself).

          • Noved
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Then I feel like it’s important that those are included in the base game no?

              • Noved
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean, exactly how it use to function. Release a new game. If there is really enough content to warrant a paid product, just put that into the next title. Instead what we are getting is developers excluding content from the base game to release it a year later for a quick buck.

                • DreamySweet@ani.social
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What is the difference, other than the pricing, between content being excluded from the base game and sold a year later as an expansion and content being excluded from the base game to be sold as a different game a year later? Why is one okay and not the other? Why is the one that is cheaper for consumers the bad one?