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.
A New Chapter for The Fun Pimps and 7 Days to Die
- Thread starter Hated
- Start date
HammerDano
Hunter
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
Community Moderator
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
Survivor
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
Hunter
Pay to win is never acceptable IMO.
InfiniteWarrior
Hunter
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 thought of in the industry.
Last edited:
Uncle Al
Survivor
I simply can't get behind this narrative that the driver for changing the armour system was to monetise cosmetics.
Possibly cosmetic opportunities was considered as a side benefit, but anyone backing the full conspiracy theory seems to completely ignore:
- The old clothing system had horrendous clipping issues and looked vile
- The old system presented no meaningful choices whatsoever. BDU Top, BDU or gothic pants and a duster or a parka, depending on whether you were going hot or cold, were clear mechanical winners over every single other clothing item
theFlu
Hunter
Having the entire PvP population on a single server sounds a little ambitious..
Gamida
Hood Ornament
I don't know how this one would work in a MP game.
Would players who didn't purchase it not see the POI's?
Would they see them but not be able to interact with them?
Would it have to be a SP only items?
Or would it be more of a server/host thing where the person who purchased it could add it to their game/server and everyone else could see and use it like we use mods now?
Riamus
Hunter
Unless the game changes, you'd still see the POIs on a map, but would have limitations such as not being able to use buttons or key racks and not seeing them in the distance. You also couldn't make your own map with them if you don't own them. Basically the same situation as people playing on maps with custom POI without installing the custom POI themselves. Selling POI packs could work if they accept that people will make a lot of random maps with them and make them available for everyone to avoid having to pay. You'd still get sales from people who want to make their own maps or who don't like the limitations that come from now having the POI installed locally, so it would probably sell decently enough.
The last time I played Rust was, I think, in 2021. I don't know how much it has changed since then, but in any case, it's a PvP game where ongoing or indefinite development might be more justified.
I'm not claiming that; I just said it might seem suspicious.
I only used the clothing system as an example of a potential monetization strategy, not to compare whether it's better than armor or not.
InfiniteWarrior
Hunter
I'd have to disagree replacing the layered system "fixed" those issues. It obviously just replaced the layered system with a non-layered system rather than fixing it. That it looked "vile" was simply a matter of modeling and texturing. Other studios have figured out how to offer both clothing and armor options without all that clipping and, of course, the lack of choices is easily solved by offering more choices. (Actually, I think mod authors figured out the former first.) Some might not like the solutions to those issues most often used, e.g. offering the option to make armor pieces invisible in favor of outfits without losing protection or buffs, but -- please -- let's not pretend it was "fixed". It just made it so that each section of the character model has only one slot. It makes less sense to me to call clothing armor and give clothing armor ratings.
Syphon583
Survivor
What does it matter the amount of DLCs? Here's the important question: did the devs deliver the base game experience as described when you purchased it? If they deliver that without requiring DLC, then the amount of added content does not matter. You can complain all you want that they are cutting content out of the game for the sake of making money, but they are a business in the business of making money. EVERY game company is, and we cannot fault TFP/BI for following the (unfortunate as it is) gaming business trend that is DLC. And that's not just game devs. Almost every industry is starting to implement similar practices, some I'd label as shady, but not all.
As far as 7DTD is concerned, IMO they can shut the doors now and never implement another thing and, while I'd be upset that the promises made weren't kept and I'd never buy another TFP product, I'd be lying my ■■■ off if I said I didn't get my moneys worth for this game.
Jost Amman
Hunter
Not if the entire PvP population is composed by Grandpa Minion and his two friends...Having the entire PvP population on a single server sounds a little ambitious..
Yeah, the number of DLCs does matter—it’s what’s going to determine whether the full game costs €70 or €200. I don’t know about you, but to me, paying €200 for a video game seems excessive.
In my opinion, they could wrap up the game in the next update or the one featuring the bandits, and I'd be satisfied.
With that mindset, then, we can’t really complain when other industries—like the automotive industry—charge you a subscription fee just to use the windshield wipers and the heater, because, you know, they have to make money… and because that’s the trend…
Video game companies and other industries were already successful before these practices.
With 2,000 hours, I think I’ve gotten my money’s worth, and I wouldn’t even mind buying a couple of DLCs if they’re worth it, but that’s it.
Besides, the game is from 2014 or so—it’s about time we could get the full game, maybe make a more modern 7DTD2 or something.
InfiniteWarrior
Hunter
Not yet. 7DTD is still far from being completed. Yet, the company is selling "cosmetic DLC" for it anyway. I can only conclude that's why TFP made so much of the game "coming out of alpha" and "going gold" when it hadn't actually come out of alpha and gone gold. I speculated this might have been a stipulation of getting it resynced on Playstation, but that speculation is probably incorrect in light of both the acquisition and paid modifications.
Did TFP cut content? No. Content implemented thus far necessary to play the yet-to-be-completed game described has not been cut, but promised content (bandits, story) has not been implemented in large part, either. Three superficial armors presented as coming to the base game, leading many to believe they would be among the basic armor sets, were cut and sold separately. Without an explanation from TFP (and none has been forthcoming), most people are going to choose for themselves whether that was an innocent oversight or something intentional to be upset about with the limited information available to them, and they have.
It's not necessary for independent studios to follow questionable industry trends to remain reasonably profitable as companies. Many other studios, e.g. Obsidian and FromSoftware, aren't despite that they're no longer independent...for the moment. (And you have to wonder how much longer they're going to be able withstand the pressure from "on high.") It's a decision and the decision has been made by TFP to follow the trend. I sincerely hope the company doesn't come to regret it. In the case of far larger studios, they likely haven't been given a choice. The decision has more than just likely come from parent companies, which is why I don't get why people blame Bethesda for choices more than likely made by ZeniMax and, now, Microsoft. Beth has been fumbling all over itself for a reason. Who, exactly, determined Beth must retrofit its entire back catalog with microtransactions? I'd wager it was an executive at ZeniMax in an effort to make Beth look more profitable than it was at the time of ZeniMax's sale of all its assets to Microsoft.
That's the decision emotionally invested players are going have to make for themselves. Was their initial outlay well spent? To hear them tell it, they love the game and have spent upwards of hundreds of hours playing it. Ergo, I imagine most would say, yes. The future of the game, whatever it may be, doesn't affect that in the least. They can decide to abandon it if they can't get behind the change in business model or stick with it regardless. Their choice.
InfiniteWarrior
Hunter
Indeed, you did, and some of us know that. So, I'd ignore any claims to the contrary were I you.
This is what I said
Quote
It’s true that we can’t know for sure whether this is cut content from the game or not, but considering that there used to be a clothing system that was replaced by armor—perhaps this might seem suspicious to some. End of quote
In my case, I don't know because I didn't see any announcements or anything like that at the time—I just updated the game and they were already there.
Dead Smarty
Survivor
There is a huge difference between a luxury industry as gaming and something like transportation. So yes, we should complain every time that happens. And for gaming in my case that means: Every developer gets a fair chance but once that trust is abused there won't be any more money from me for any of your future projects.
In the case of 7d2d that means I bought an early acces product for the PS5, if it never gets finished that was the last thing I bought from TFP.