Yeah, the headline is just awful. The Inkbound Dev notes that they’re removing all in-game microtransactions. The goal is to move away from pressuring you to spend money on microtransactions as you play, and keep them where they belong: on the store page.
The devs are doing exactly what they said. The headline is either click-bait, or a result of awful reading comprehension.
They did not make that claim. The article is just wrong. The devs said they’re removing in-game monitization and only having DLC on the store page. It’s functionally identical I assume, but there’s less pressure on players playing the game.
But… Like… Did we ask for that? If you cant afford to keep developing a game after shipping it… Dont?
Just make the game, wrap it up finished, and let me buy it. It doesnt need to be a subscription, I dont need to play it for 6 years, you can move on with your life and design a different game.
Ill pay cash, just give me the whole game for crying out loud
Well games used to not have Servers and be peer to peer they did not have season where New content got Put in or if they got New content they Split the Player Base Because they Sold the New maps, classes etc. So selling cosmetics and giving away the New classes maps etc is actually great. So that way the person not spending much gets New content and the person that love the game can Support them more. At the Same time Yes time is spend on Those skins etc and not New stuff but What would you like. A game being shut down and not being play able like battleborn? Or a game that gets New stuff but also New cosmetics?
Do you not remember when a title would get released and stay in a buggy state forever rendering the game useless?
Have you never enjoyed a game so much that you wanted more content for it
I don’t want a product that’s going to go stale the second I buy it, I want a game I can play for 10 years with new content being added to keep it fresh.
Let me guess, you think movies should just be perma running live streams?
Calling a game “stale” for not having an unending stream of spectacle creep is a wild opinion. Its a game, not a lifestyle. Not ending is why so many games are shit now. Because they dont stop when theyre good, they stop when its become too bad to play, and everyone leaves.
Enjoying a game so much you want more content was, and still is, filled just fine from dlc and sequels. The best part? They dont require permanently altering what you thought was good, so if theyre trash you still have the original.
Most of the gaming community did, yes. Players want servers that last forever and updates that never stop, and they’ll throw a hissy fit if it costs them a cent more up front than it did 30 years ago. I’m not a fan of it either, but it’s where the industry is right now.
More importantly people don’t want to buy into closed game environments. They promise of ongoing development attracts players that want that type of scale, and also allows devs to continue to eat. It’s a win/win.
This is the right choice by devs. I haven’t played it and honestly I probably never will, but I respect the decision.
I don’t think you’ll regret it. Shiny Shoe knows what they’re doing in terms of design and Inkbound is phenomenal. They’ve been making solid improvements throughout EA.
The badness this game had at launch really can’t be overstated, though. At launch, this was a paid early access always online mostly-singleplayer-with-coop game with a premium currency shop and a battle pass. And it was one of those games where the shop was the most fleshed out part.
They’ve added offline mode and are now reworking the microtransactions to Steam DLC, but I’m still very skeptical of them. That launch was so blatantly over the top bad.
I ignored all the mtx stuff, which was pretty easy, and have had a blast with co-op. I can’t think of anything else that comes close to this in terms of meaningful synergies with friends. And Shiny Shoe has proven they know how to use EA to turn out a good product with Monster Train so I wouldn’t give up on them quite yet.
Microtransactions in general are the reason I avoid the majority of games like the plague, if you have to purchase the title and it’s on PC. The only exceptions I accept is the one RPG series I play and the spin-off auto chess card game. They have it figured out, at least, that shoving the paid features down your throat is bad for the player.
In a statement posted to Steam, developer Shiny Shoe said […]
What a sloppy and lazy article. They don’t even bother linking to the statement from the devs. Seriously, that would have taken less then 1 minute to add.
It doesn’t matter if a game with microtransactions makes them easier to get or even free.
If a game was designed with microtransactions in mind, the game has to be made tedious, grindy, and/or or frustrating completely on purpose to incentivize buying things.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Good to hear, I hope this studio will stay alive in this industry
so…they’re not removing all microtransactions
Yeah, the headline is just awful. The Inkbound Dev notes that they’re removing all in-game microtransactions. The goal is to move away from pressuring you to spend money on microtransactions as you play, and keep them where they belong: on the store page.
The devs are doing exactly what they said. The headline is either click-bait, or a result of awful reading comprehension.
It’s just cosmetics, I don’t see the problem. They have to make money for food in some way or another.
Its not a free game. Im not necessarily hating on cosmetic microtransactions, but they are microtransactions and theyve claimed to remove all of them.
They did not make that claim. The article is just wrong. The devs said they’re removing in-game monitization and only having DLC on the store page. It’s functionally identical I assume, but there’s less pressure on players playing the game.
Didnt we used to do that by selling the game tho?
We also didn’t expect ongoing development of games after they were shipped though, aside from bug fixes (sometimes even then )
But… Like… Did we ask for that? If you cant afford to keep developing a game after shipping it… Dont?
Just make the game, wrap it up finished, and let me buy it. It doesnt need to be a subscription, I dont need to play it for 6 years, you can move on with your life and design a different game.
Ill pay cash, just give me the whole game for crying out loud
Ah but that requires them to finish it before releasing it
Well games used to not have Servers and be peer to peer they did not have season where New content got Put in or if they got New content they Split the Player Base Because they Sold the New maps, classes etc. So selling cosmetics and giving away the New classes maps etc is actually great. So that way the person not spending much gets New content and the person that love the game can Support them more. At the Same time Yes time is spend on Those skins etc and not New stuff but What would you like. A game being shut down and not being play able like battleborn? Or a game that gets New stuff but also New cosmetics?
Yes?
Do you not remember when a title would get released and stay in a buggy state forever rendering the game useless?
Have you never enjoyed a game so much that you wanted more content for it
I don’t want a product that’s going to go stale the second I buy it, I want a game I can play for 10 years with new content being added to keep it fresh.
Let me guess, you think movies should just be perma running live streams?
Calling a game “stale” for not having an unending stream of spectacle creep is a wild opinion. Its a game, not a lifestyle. Not ending is why so many games are shit now. Because they dont stop when theyre good, they stop when its become too bad to play, and everyone leaves.
Enjoying a game so much you want more content was, and still is, filled just fine from dlc and sequels. The best part? They dont require permanently altering what you thought was good, so if theyre trash you still have the original.
You can also just not buy the game if it has micro transactions. It’s the same V logic
This is a non argument, and a waste of time to type
Obviously I can not buy things, congratulations, well done.
We are talking about the games being made each year, though, which are made regardless of if I buy them personally.
Most of the gaming community did, yes. Players want servers that last forever and updates that never stop, and they’ll throw a hissy fit if it costs them a cent more up front than it did 30 years ago. I’m not a fan of it either, but it’s where the industry is right now.
More importantly people don’t want to buy into closed game environments. They promise of ongoing development attracts players that want that type of scale, and also allows devs to continue to eat. It’s a win/win.
This is the right choice by devs. I haven’t played it and honestly I probably never will, but I respect the decision.
Deep Rock Galactic does this and nobody cares.
What’s wrong with any of that
I think my biggest problem is that the game is still in early access. There shouldn’t be any dlc imo.
I love this game btw
I’ve never heard of this game before now, but I really liked Monster Train.
I checked it out and it looks like a lot of fun. With the news they’re removing monetization I picked up a copy.
I don’t think you’ll regret it. Shiny Shoe knows what they’re doing in terms of design and Inkbound is phenomenal. They’ve been making solid improvements throughout EA.
The badness this game had at launch really can’t be overstated, though. At launch, this was a paid early access always online mostly-singleplayer-with-coop game with a premium currency shop and a battle pass. And it was one of those games where the shop was the most fleshed out part.
They’ve added offline mode and are now reworking the microtransactions to Steam DLC, but I’m still very skeptical of them. That launch was so blatantly over the top bad.
I ignored all the mtx stuff, which was pretty easy, and have had a blast with co-op. I can’t think of anything else that comes close to this in terms of meaningful synergies with friends. And Shiny Shoe has proven they know how to use EA to turn out a good product with Monster Train so I wouldn’t give up on them quite yet.
Microtransactions in general are the reason I avoid the majority of games like the plague, if you have to purchase the title and it’s on PC. The only exceptions I accept is the one RPG series I play and the spin-off auto chess card game. They have it figured out, at least, that shoving the paid features down your throat is bad for the player.
What a sloppy and lazy article. They don’t even bother linking to the statement from the devs. Seriously, that would have taken less then 1 minute to add.
They probably spent that 1 minute playing more Inkbound.
It doesn’t matter if a game with microtransactions makes them easier to get or even free. If a game was designed with microtransactions in mind, the game has to be made tedious, grindy, and/or or frustrating completely on purpose to incentivize buying things.