Guess you haven't played Sunset Overdrive.
No, I haven't. Does it have an even bigger free set of costumes and stuff?
Why would their first party titles all be $70? All of their first party titles this gen weren't $60. Also, aren't Sony and other publishers already charging $70?
Again, isn't this how the business currently works? What publisher wouldn't love to have a strong fan base playing one game for years, constantly generating new revenue with expansions and microtransactions? How is this bad for a gamer? There have been countless games that tried to do this and for every failure there are plenty of Avengers and Anthem's. Please list for me an executive at any publisher, MicroSonyNintendo included, and tell me which of them wouldn't start drooling when being offered what you are describing. As long as the execution is good, this isn't an inherently bad business model.
Of course it's not a bad business model. That's not the point. The point is that it's a scummy unethical business practice.
Oh man can you please source these costs? I enjoy math, I'd love to see what "next to nothing" is. Also, people have been blaring this "all games will come this!!!!" horn for like a decade it seems. Yet we're not closer to it now than we were back then.
Most skins and costumes are just retextures, with maybe a couple alphamaps or other things thrown in. A talented 3D artist should be able to make a new skin in 4-5 hours. I know this because I went to school for 3D Art, and Programming. Considering that game artists work 40 to 60 hours a week with mandatory crunch, and no overtime pay. Well, I'll let you do the math for yourself. Keep in mind that once they've paid the 3D artist, and sold 30K to godknowshowmany digital copies they've made bank. It's gotta be something like 3,000% profit on these stupid microtransactions.
Another bizarre translation that comes off as whiny and anti-business and downright just silly and illogical. I'm all for consumer rights and pro consumer moves, but at some point you have to realize you've jumped the shark when it comes to consumer rights and are just being upset that all these publishers want to make money.
There's a difference between making money, and ripping people off.
I don't get this idea that MS wants MTX in all their games and people talk as if they've been doing that all gen or something. The only game I remember it being an issue is Forza 7 and they fixed it. Their games aren't grindy or full of MTX. Sure you might have an outlier here or there but it's no different than Sony.
Equally confused as to why people are so set in stubborn ways against the idea of a good GaaS title. If done right, it's a great business model for consumers. For example I play Dead By Daylight. It came out in 2017 and I still play it daily. It cost me $30 to buy. Compare that to many $60 titles, and I would have been done with them in less than 30 hours. It monetizes the game in three ways:
I've played this game for thousands of hours and whenever I finally find a SX, it will likely be the first game I download. There are plenty of good games like this that do content the right way, there's no need to mindless disregard everything associated with GaaS because you think your rights are at stake and that in the future every game will be a GaaS.
There will always be a place for strong single player games and games with a beginning and an end. No need to worry so much about it.
I put my comments in bold in the above quote.
As for Dead by Daylight: So every three or four months they come out with $8 in DLC? And the game is four years old? So does that mean there's $96 in DLC? And then you can waste even more money on cosmetics, even though cosmetics are free in other games such as GoW, Spiderman, Mario Odyssey, BotW, etc.?
How much money have you spent on DbD? How much money would one have to spend to get the full experience?
The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.