A New Chapter for The Fun Pimps and 7 Days to Die

[grz__]

No that is not reasonable.
In every case, the base game is where all the real heavy lifting in creation is done. No addition could ever demand so much work that it would cost nearly the same as the base game. Even at 50% of base game's cost DLC can be considered expensive for nearly every game.

I agree, €8 for a cosmetic item is a lot, considering the game cost me €15 or €17—I don't remember exactly. That said, as I mentioned earlier, I don't know how video game development works behind the scenes or what they have to do to fund the project, so I'm fine with it as long as they don't go too far. In fact, I haven’t bought any armor—I’m not the type of player who cares much about how the character looks, I like them but I don't need them.

 

[HammerDano]

I agree, €8 for a cosmetic item is a lot, considering the game cost me €15 or €17—I don't remember exactly. That said, as I mentioned earlier, I don't know how video game development works behind the scenes or what they have to do to fund the project, so I'm fine with it as long as they don't go too far. In fact, I haven’t bought any armor—I’m not the type of player who cares much about how the character looks, I like them but I don't need them.

I agree...as long as there are no pay to win sets, who cares?
there is no set way that games developments are paid for
big studios are well funded, they should be able to release fully functioning games, but, don't.
medium and small studios seem depend on crowd funding or having had good sales in Early Access. then hustling out content to keep sales steady. most foster relationships with content creators to keep hype for the game up.

I prefer what was done with Rust: Parallel development...both PC and console get the best their systems can handle, and optimizing makes the game better for both. at no point have they stopped trying to make content.
They sell a ton of skins...for buildings, for weapons and clothing, have lots of decorative pieces for people who like that sort of thing....hell even your fishing rod can be re-skinned. This has been more than enough to keep everyone happy for a very long time. I have probably spent at least a hundred on skins myself over the years. (i like the re-textured building sets)
I like to use Facepunch and Rust as an example because they were also a very small indie company when they started that project in 2013.

 

[Roland]

A better analogy…

Spitting against the wind is the best analogy.

I know there is always the hope that if gamers could just unite and refuse to support the model, the industry would be forced to change— but unfortunately gamers are already united in voting with their wallets and the votes don’t coincide with the popular internet message board outrage we see repeated over and over again.

As for this game becoming a live service model we’ve already seen posts in favor of it. Our overzealous PVP cousins are very much interested in 7 Days turning into a game that supports 50+ players destroying each other season after season….

 

[Dark Sun]

There will likely always be people who have different opinions about what constitutes a microtransaction and what doesn't. It really doesn't matter, though. The real question is what people consider acceptable and what they do not. So here is my view...

Pay to Win - Never acceptable. If you have to spend money in order to complete a game without it taking significantly longer or in order to be on a level playing ground with other players, that's not okay. I avoid such games.

In-game purchases using real money - Rarely acceptable. If the purchases are not needed in order to play the game and so are entirely optional, AND the purchasing system is not directly in your face, then I don't really care. If I constantly have a button or ads or something popping up or always on the screen for buying stuff, then that's not okay. An example of something that I don't mind is Idle Champions. The in-game purchases aren't necessary to play everything in the game and don't have any significant impact on how you play the game. The location to purchase it is a small button in the "menu" and you don't ever have to click it and it isn't obtrusive. That format is something I can live with, and I might even consider the occasional purchase from that kind of setup if the game and devs are good.

DLC of any kind other than Pay to Win stuff - Acceptable. A DLC that is sold outside of the game, no matter what kind of DLC it is (other than Pay to Win), is fine. It doesn't matter if it's an expansion or a cosmetic item. If people want cosmetics, let them have them. It has no impact on my ability to play the game. There isn't anything wrong with such things being made for sale or with some people wanting to buy every cosmetic item they can get their hands on. I don't do that, but if others want to, good for them.

Again, those are my opinions only. Some will have the same or similar opinions, and others will have different opinions. There's nothing wrong with that.

But what I originally responded to was the idea that TFP is the one promoting microtransactions and that BI will change that. The fact is that BI is the one who will be pushing microtransactions so much that TFP will look like they never even considered it in comparison. In other words, if you thought TFP's cosmetic DLC were bad, you're in for much worse from BI. That is an assumption based on their track record, and may be incorrect, of course.

I'll add onto this with my own summarized takes.

1) Pay to win heavy - Never acceptable for what I hope are obvious reasons. I have a life and I respect my purchasing power.

2) Pay to win light - Not as bad, but still woefully unacceptable in my eyes. Think of XP boosters, power boosters, etc. Even if the game balance dictates that you don't need them, and might even throw off the balance, it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

2) FOMO tactics - Examples include being incentivized to login every day, grind for multiple hours, rinse and repeat until you get a cheeky daily, weekly, or monthly reward. Failure to do so results in content being lost forever. Even if it's only cosmetic, I avoid these games like the plague.

3) In-game purchases using real money - Very similar to your thoughts you listed above. As long as it isn't in your face and doesn't affect gameplay, I couldn't care less about it. In-game references, such as voice dialogue breaking the fourth wall and notifying you of the cash shop existing isn't acceptable for me. If a game shovels in content that you can't use or interact with unless you purchase DLC content are a no-go for me, especially if I'm not interested in that content to begin with. ASA (Ark Survival Ascended) allegedly does this by spawning in creatures you can't interact with (taking up the population cap) unless you fork over some real world doubloons.

4) In-game purchases using in-game currency bought with real money - Hard freaking pass. These systems are typically heavily predatory, creating situations such as needing to purchase x amount to buy an item, but the only available option gives you additional currency to spend, costing more in the end. They're also typically shoved in your face at every available opportunity.

5) Macrotransactions - Skins costing the price of the game itself, for example. Hard pass.

6) Cosmetic microtransactions - Very rarely do I participate in this. I've purchased two, maybe three cosmetic microtransactions in my life, and the only one within decent memory is 7D2D. I typically view these with a stinky side eye. It is undeniable that these have had a negative impact on game design philosophy over the years. No, they don't affect you directly, but being stuck with a loincloth and a ragtag shirt and having no other option (if you want to look fancier than a hobo or like Gollum) than having to spend cash is something I will never not judge. Even if it didn't open the door to other forms of monetization to being as widely acceptable by the general masses today, it showed that given enough time, people will come to accept such practises. Still, comparitively, they're harmless (mostly), and allow dev teams to fund their projects for far longer than they otherwise might have. Free to play games require them to exist, as well.

7) Battle passes - Not interested, I see it as another way to squeeze cents and dollars from people's pockets. These typically use FOMO tactics. (Battle) pass.

8) Expansions - Hours upon hours of new content added - new characters, new zones, biomes, so forth. I'm perfectly okay with these existing in their current form. I had no gripes purchasing The Frozen Wilds expansion for HZD after I had completed the main game.

9) Mini expansions - For 7D2D, this would take the form of POI packs, vehicle packs, etc. Undecided, steering towards no, but I'm open to them ajar.

 

[Space4Ace]

I'll add onto this with my own summarized takes.

1) Pay to win heavy - Never acceptable for what I hope are obvious reasons. I have a life and I respect my purchasing power.

2) Pay to win light - Not as bad, but still woefully unacceptable in my eyes. Think of XP boosters, power boosters, etc. Even if the game balance dictates that you don't need them, and might even throw off the balance, it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Pay to win is never acceptable IMO.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

As for this game becoming a live service model we’ve already seen posts in favor of it. Our overzealous PVP....

At least one prominent PvE content creator on YouTube actively suggested it to TFP as well, posting a video all about how it would "breathe new life" into the game and community. So, the live service push can't be laid at the feet of PvP players exclusively. That particular video didn't exactly receive a warm reception. In fact, it's been delisted, but no doubt a lot of players would be fine with paying a subscription to play; "purchasing" skins, building block sets, paint sets (sets of textures to customize the look of their bases); etc. I don't think they grasp the present nature of the game, which is more old school (LAN parties, user-adminstered servers, community mod authoring, etc.) and are perhaps a bit on the naive side, thinking it's already a live service game simply because they're playing it multiplayer, but there we are. Others would absolutely balk at that, accustomed to their "Pimp Dreams" coming true at no extra charge.

What John Carmack suggested as a path forward for publishers is more or less a riff on the old school way of doing things. "[He] advocates for building games that will still work 'at some level' without central server support, encourages LAN support for multiplayer games (because this allows people to write proxies), and supports user-run servers both because they can help save on hosting costs and for the community creative angle." (John Carmack goes off about online-only games being abandoned) 7DTD already does this.

There has been a generational shift from product-oriented to service-oriented a great many players actually grew up with. They've literally never known anything different. Subscriptions to play video games (or watch TV/movies or read books); purchasable skins as opposed to community-made skins and mods; etc. and so on; is actually expected by them. So, there's that as well. A great many older people are not going to climb on board, but like older, more expensive employees CEOs think of as immanently replaceable, like cogs in a machine, so older players are largely though of in the industry.