You gave them YOUR money because THEY made a product  you WANTED. They dont owe you anything after that handshake and vice versa. Imagine SE forwarding a email to all its player base saying, "Remember when made FF7 on PS1 that you bought? Weeeell FF14 (old version) isnt doing so well so we think that because we gave you that wonderful experience all those years ago you should support ff14 with a subscription! #dontcareifyoudontplayjustbuy.

     Lets flip the script with Konami! They are responsible for some of the most beloved IP's that you played! You should be obligated to support everything they do to say thank you for them enriching your life. Does that sound stupid? A relationship between a business and its customer is a 2 way street, not one way: They make something good they get your money. They get your money when they make something good. The end.

LOL did someone just say people are being entitled for wanting the extra saves? ROFL

MG Survive is structured differently to Pokemon the latter is structured to prevent mass farming of legendarys and rares hence why it's always been one save it's there for a competitive reason the former is an online game in structure similar to what many other games are like MH so the's no real reason to have only one save to begin with especially when MHW can give 3.

So the game cost 40 bucks and they charge 10 bucks for extra save slot. My question is do you actually need that extra save slot. At 40 bones are you getting the full experience of a fun game. Personally I would say 30 bucks and 10 dollar save if the game is full and fun actually would not be a bad ideal.

At the budget price and persistent online world, I guess if they are not doing loot boxes or something like that I guess they need to make that extra cash somewhere. Not sure if this is really a big deal.

LOL, companies charging for basic features is not really a big deal?!?!?!?! Do you hear yourself? And do you not see the terrible precedent this sets for the EAs, Bunglevisions, Ubisofts, WBs, etc.'s of the world? Attitudes like this are why greedy publishers get away with imposing predatory practices on the rest of us. Every time we've given them an inch, they've always gone the extra mile, continually pushing the envelop for what they can get away with. First, it was cosmetics being sold as DLC (Skyrim horse armor), then it was year-round multiplayer DLC (CoD), then it was charging for content on the damn disc, then it was VOICE PACKS (CoD once again), then it was DLC from a near-decade old remaster that could only be bought with a less popular game for $80 being sold to us with a price hike (Modern Warfare Remaster), and now, we have predatory loot boxes and other shady monetization schemes being thrown at us.  What next? They'll start charging you to SAVE your game? Under no circumstances should basic features be cordoned off and locked behind a paywall.

And it's literally a MGSV mod/asset flip being sold to you for $40 with basic features that should be given to you for free in any game being paywalled. I guarantee you it didn't cost that much to make, there is literally 0 justification for this. Like I said, MHW, a full-priced AAA game gives you 3 character slots, storage space to contain every item in the game and then some and over 1,000 loadouts and it doesn't charge a penny for them. 

If a full-priced AAA game with real effort, time and dedication put into it can do that, why can't Konami with a half-assed asset flip of a game?

Who said its a basic feature.  This is your opinion.  If the game is charged a budget price, and they have a persistent online world which does cost money to maintain, then it's not your typical single player game.  Its your opinion that the game is a MGSV mod/asset flip but you really have no clue how much development, cost and resources has gone into the production of the game.  You make an assumption without ever playing the game and give it off as fact.  My opinion is based on if the game meets the fun requirement and is a good game at its 40 dollar price.

Here is my point.  Game companies can and will try many different things to earn that little extra cash for games, we as consumers vote with our dollars.  If the game doesn't meet the required fun for the price and features, then it will fail and then game company will go and either do something better, refine the price to feature point or go under.  I do not get wound up over this stuff probably because I have played games since pong.  Everything is an evolution and only the strong survive.

What exactely prevents them from giving you a second save file so you can just start the game over instead of having to delete your old file?

I mean they can prevent you from cheating like you said by just not allowing to save on another file or am I not thinking enough?

You should still be able to start a new game with a new savefile and only be able to save on that one.

So if my thoughts are right then this is a laughable excuse.

Correct me if I am wrong...

You transfer Pokemon in the games through the trading feature, each save file generates 1 of each of the game's Legendarys and Rares so having two files would have people using the second to farm Legendarys and Rares through the trading system. This would lead to people having unbeatable teams made up entirely of Pokémon you're only meant to have one of and would break competitive play for many players.

It's not about where you save it's about the one of a kind Pokémon each playthrough would generate.

No offence dude but he has a point people used your argument back when microtransactions and such were new now the industry is infested by them, I've been gaming since the 80s so your strong survive argument has no real context here because for example during our time things like costumes and such were extras already in the game to unlock through playing. The's making money but then the is charging for basics, these companies have things like costume packs and all that before launch to charge for yet back in the days when you and me first started these costumes were free in the game.

This isn't evolution mate this is down right trying their luck, you say people should vote with their wallets right well people only found out when they already bought the game the was no such indication before hand the company has already made their money by now. Like him or not Jim Sterling has a point about the industry.

Well you can just buy another pokemon game to do that already no?

You dont buy that steaming pile of AAA garbage! That's the point I'm making!