Of course it can be swung in a negative light too, because it affects developers bottom lines, and they always want the most money possible. CDPR is no different.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion. The people who wouldn't have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.

Microtransactions is a system designed to prey on completionist whales. Barely anyone only buys a couple of things and doesn't end up spending more than $30 over time as the content is drip fed and the new hotness comes along to replace the old hotness. Those that don't spend anything, or just buy one thing before catching on, weren't going to spend the $30 anyway.

It is false choice that negatively impacts the game experience.

[–] schmidtster@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion

So if they want the content, they can support the devs so they make more.

The people who wouldn't have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.

So no lose there, but they could buy an outfit if they liked it and want to support the dev.

….. that’s actually the majority of gamers….. 2% of the player base accounts for most of the purchases, that means the other 98% is still buying stuff, just not everything. So that’s not even remotely close to reality, most people pick and choose the content, which is literally why this because a thing, because the market wanted it….

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 1 points 7 months ago

Unless the entire game is developed by an independent studio and is entirely funded on microtransactions, buying micro transactions is just there for more company profit on top of the regular game sales by stripping content out of a full release. It isn't supporting the development.

The market didn't want it.

[–] metaStatic@kbin.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

just like the market wants nothing but superhero movies? This doesn't work anything like a free market. people would buy full games if they where available, devs just figured out they could drip feed the content and make significantly more money at the expense of a good product so you don't get to choose the good product because it doesn't exist. That's not the market choosing crap it's the market makers only providing crap.

[–] schmidtster@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

They still buy full games though, using old as seats to make new content for an “old” game is a great way to have more income come in. Most would probably prefer to make a new game, but that takes longer as well.

So if it’s a dlc a year at $15 for 4 years, or a game every 4 years for $60… what’s the difference in the end? Other than what you think is going on inside your head? It’s the same content, same price, same everything, you just get content yearly instead of every 4 years. Bonus for everyone since they can than use that money after the first year to maybe make the other better.

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

because the market wanted it

I can't possibly roll my eyes any harder at this statement, with gaming companies practically competing to go under as fast as possible over the past decade.

[–] schmidtster@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

What…? Most people want more content more often with more options, not everyone wants a release every 4 years that’s the same content and story rehashed.