Games

You can literally earn all the credits you need to buy out the store just from playing.

Unpopular opinion but I think it's acceptable as long as its optional especially as multiplayer game where they are hosting servers. Those aren't cheap and I don't have the game so I wouldn't know but if they do release more multiplayer content for free, I think it's further justification because that's better than paid content packs. As an example, CoD on PC had a recurring issue of DLC content being useless since too little people would buy them. Titanfall saw this issue as well and it was even worse due to the smaller player base. So with Titanfall 2 they just made it free and added cosmetics microtransactions that were actually reasonably priced.

Maybe this is not the solution for everything but as long as it has no bearing on gameplay what's the harm? If you're not one to spend on microtransactions then you only get the benefits. I don't think a more benign implementation should be criticised just because we fear the potential of it potentially becoming worse.

To each their own, but I think this is a bit extremist. Life isn't black and white. Free games with mtx can be good or bad, paid games without can be good or bad.

Just not buying solely because it has a shop/battle pass means you miss out on a lot of games where it has zero meaning and you're not allowing any nuanced discussion to happen on the issue.

I think there need to be a balance. If it’s a service game, they need money to keep servicing the game. There is a fine line between a reasonable voluntary option to support a game in exchange for some symbolic cosmetic and gross predatory practices.

Is it really that bad?

You can find supercredits on missions. I've unlocked the premium battlepass and bought some armor without spending a dime of real money.

Premium currency is freely available on missions and it's not hard to accrue enough to make frequent buys in the money store without spending a cent. The problem becomes the amount of time I spend in game, which doesn't feel like a problem.

we are living in an age where paying more money to a game for full content after buying it is "refreshing"

I mean Skull & Bones, the $70 always-online piratey piece of shit from Ubisoft, has an ad in the game for the Premium Edition - which, I shit you not, the first line of the description says "premium edition gives you access to the Full Game."

Like, fuck any form of modern gaming whatsoever after this point. I bought the Arkham games cause they're on a huge sale on steam (literally $10 for the whole trilogy, and Origins is currently $5) and have been having a fucking blast replaying those amazing games.

Whats are over?

If you are genuinely asking, I can play Devil's advocate:

Because then they can set the price at 40 USD, making it more affordable, and possibly make back the difference with some (mostly) cosmetic premium content.

This is not so easy to argue for games that are sold at 70 USD, and premium content is much more tied to gameplay, and all the FOMO dark patterns are turned to max.

Why I think people are praising the helldivers2 monetization is that isn't the case. The "premium currency" is earnable in game and at a reasonable. I haven't bought any but still have the battlepass and a few of the premium armors.

You get it as part of the battlepass, and the gameplay loop guides you to the currency. You'll be looking for ammo or in game currency, and there also happens to be premium currency sometimes. The battlepass not being timed and on a work at your own pace is great too.

It feels fair to me? Like the developer can still make a buck but not ruin the experience. I.e. the monetization lets people pay to instantly gratify if they want vs punish you for not spending.