But crossplay is the sexy thing. Any developer who's anyone has to do this because reasons. But you also have to "jump the shark" with your game in order to make it fit. That seems to be a big reason everything got dumbed down. Everyone sells out eventually. Well, not everyone, but most. This is simply a big sellout. Joel and his bro are living on easy street and have turned it over. Can I blame them? Rich guys cashed out and it's a new game. This isn't 7D2D anymore, they just use the name.
So traders gonna be pushing DLC armor? Basically in game ads.
- Thread starter Slingblade2040
- Start date
For some people a LEGO-set has lost its worth when the shrink-wrap has been removed. For others it is still the same
7DaystoPlay
Refugee
I will be the first to call out greedy behaviour, but the TFP DLC model is far from that.
Are the skins expensive and somewhat useless since it's first person? Yes, but they do not alter gameplay in any shape or form. You don't have to buy it, engage with it and can simply ignore the button to purchase it. No penalties, judgment or consequence.
Joel talking about the DLC armor I just viewed as a nodge on the whole DLC novelty, but HE IS the armor trader, so it's kind of on par with his role in the trader specialization.
I have player Myth of Empires and they have frigging loot boxes instead of skins, so you bet on a chance of randomly get a skin. Besides, lot's of important crafting material was paywalled. THAT is a real greedy design. I have displayed my discontent on several elements of the current iteration of the game, but on the specific point, I heartly disagree with Josh. The TFP DLC model is very tame, cosmetic only, totally optional and, therefore, in my modest opinion, should be encouraged, not frowned upon.
The argument that the outfits were presented before and were part of the game plan is sort of a conspiracy theory one. You can of course believe in it if you want, but I have no proof it was the case. And even if that was true, the outfits were not implemented. They are allowed to change decisions that the player has not experienced yet.
But, then again: I just vent constructive feedback to make the game better and for it to have longer legs.
If you expect the game to survive it must keep generating revenue for the devs to justify working on it still. Supporting cosmetic DLC is supporting the game development.
In my case, I just bought for now the desert outfit, because of the exchange rate those are very expensive in my country. But provide some course corrections, I will of course by the rest, or even consider buying new ones if implemented.
Are the skins expensive and somewhat useless since it's first person? Yes, but they do not alter gameplay in any shape or form. You don't have to buy it, engage with it and can simply ignore the button to purchase it. No penalties, judgment or consequence.
Joel talking about the DLC armor I just viewed as a nodge on the whole DLC novelty, but HE IS the armor trader, so it's kind of on par with his role in the trader specialization.
I have player Myth of Empires and they have frigging loot boxes instead of skins, so you bet on a chance of randomly get a skin. Besides, lot's of important crafting material was paywalled. THAT is a real greedy design. I have displayed my discontent on several elements of the current iteration of the game, but on the specific point, I heartly disagree with Josh. The TFP DLC model is very tame, cosmetic only, totally optional and, therefore, in my modest opinion, should be encouraged, not frowned upon.
The argument that the outfits were presented before and were part of the game plan is sort of a conspiracy theory one. You can of course believe in it if you want, but I have no proof it was the case. And even if that was true, the outfits were not implemented. They are allowed to change decisions that the player has not experienced yet.
But, then again: I just vent constructive feedback to make the game better and for it to have longer legs.
If you expect the game to survive it must keep generating revenue for the devs to justify working on it still. Supporting cosmetic DLC is supporting the game development.
In my case, I just bought for now the desert outfit, because of the exchange rate those are very expensive in my country. But provide some course corrections, I will of course by the rest, or even consider buying new ones if implemented.
Sometimes the complaint is the same as a solution. "I don't like(hate) that you changed/removed X" means "I want X back, not Y".
InfiniteWarrior
Scavenger
Touble with that line of thinking is that 7DTD is not a MMO and was never intended to be a MMO, but simply a full and complete game playable with friends. And it was though A21. TFP were doing everything right on the business side of things: produce a product, sell the product; community run servers; etc. just like it was in the good ol' days. Then came 1.0....
Honestly, I'll start worrying about them potentially being scammy when and if they start down the Star Citizen road, which you seem to be suggesting they do.
Last edited:
Sometimes you get a box from amazon and something besides what you ordered is inside.For some people a LEGO-set has lost its worth when the shrink-wrap has been removed. For others it is still the same
See, I can try using clever analogies to discount things too!
Riamus
Hunter
Sometimes, but usually not. And your example of bring back X will rarely be listened to. Suggestions that go against what the devs want will be ignored. That doesn't mean they don't listen; it just means they don't want to go that route. If you want to make a suggestion and have them consider it, the suggestion needs to fit with their plans. "Bring back X" will usually be ignored, but "Add X to Y" may not, depending on time required and usefulness or interest of the suggestion.
So "Bring back jars" will obviously be ignored. "Add polar bears" will most likely be ignored. "Change the icon and name of badges to something that is more immersive like a protection kit" has a chance of being listened to (and they already said they are considering other options for that). If all the complaints were "I hate biome hazards." without directly discussing the badges and why they make no sense, TFP probably wouldn't be changing those. But since some people have directly mentioned them and gave their thoughts on what would make them better, TFP is looking at making changes to those. Being clear and constructive and giving suggestions makes it far more likely that they will listen to you. Being negative and disrespectful and calling TFP names as happens often with the complaints here will just result in being ignored by them.
The point being that TFP does listen. But listening doesn't mean they will do what you suggest. And there isn't anything wrong with that, from TFP or any other dev studio. Almost everyone who says they don't listen are saying that because their specific topic isn't getting changed. That's usually something like LBD or empty jars. It won't matter if TFP listened to and implemented every other suggestion. By not doing the thing the person really wants done, they will say that TFP doesn't listen. It's really, "TFP doesn't listen to me."
theFlu
Hunter
That's kinda too late, they'll forever be badges from now on; unless they make it an actual mechanical thing you need to craft from realistic bits, or some such major change in the logistics.
Riamus
Hunter
Lol. Perhaps, but I think most people who don't like them being called badges or looking like badges will still be happy with the change even if it still sounds like badges in their heads.
I just ignore them, but I'd appreciate the change regardless... even if I continue to call them badges out of habit.7DaystoPlay
Refugee
To be honest, I was suggesting the exact opposite.
My point is the game's DLC is absolutely fair, since it's optional. I used an example of disonest DLC model in my view just to show how clean and optional 7DTD skin store is.
I get it is not an MMO. But optional content, since it's not mandatory, will not ruin anybody's experience. If you don't want to pay the price, you don't have to buy the skin. There are free mods that offer tons of skins. You buy an optional skin to support the ongoing work on a game you enjoy.
InfiniteWarrior
Scavenger
You specifically said:
While it's in alpha? Sure: the very same sales of the game that have kept the alpha going for over a decade. MTX in a non-MMO that hasn't been completed? Questionable, at best. And people are questioning it.
Slingblade2040
Scavenger
And where do you have to buy the mentioned dlc armor vs the other armor he sells?
That is how companies test the waters with what they can get away with.
Its only cosmetics armor its no big deal, its only an exp boost to lessen the grind its no big deal and so on.
Companies test what they can get away with and they love folks who defend scummy ■■■■ they do to help push the narrative of its ok for X and Y reasons.
Having a quest giving NPC mention DLC armor that you pay for with real money is an issue. Its a test to see what they can get away with and then push more on later.
This will just get worse as more DLC is added and eventually ways to color your armor with paid items.
Syphon583
Survivor
I completely agree with this sentiment. If it gets to a point where their tactics negatively affect my gameplay, I will simply stop playing the game. Players will let them know and hopefully they change their tactics. However, the problem is the knee jerk, over-the-top reaction. What they have displayed with the Trader lines is not scummy, is unobtrusive, and is not forcing me to do anything.
InfiniteWarrior
Scavenger
I've agreed the fact that Joel mentions non-"cosmetic" armor sets in the same breath proof enough it was not originally intended an in-game ad for DLC. Those three outfits were held back for sale later than the dev stream that suggested they would all be available in the base game and TFP probably didn't even think about that voice line. And if it's so upsetting a player just can't handle it, there's always the option of removing the voice line via a mod. Heck, TFP might even consider removing it themselves just to avoid controversy over it. Who knows?
Unfortunately, I think the "test the waters" phase in the industry is over. "Cosmetic DLC" (can't even stand the phrase) is widely considered acceptable in the industry today and, obviously, among players as well. The practice has been normalized to the extent few question it anymore.
As for it getting worse in this game, I imagine it will. I can envision new paints, patterns, outfits, glasses/goggles and possibly even shapes making their way into the "DLC" store. Unfortunately, the industry has successfully redefined "DLC" as anything that's downloaded when it used to mean significant expansions -- stories, maps, etc. -- that took significant investment of time and money to produce and were actually worth the money being charged today for "cosmetics."
Edit: For that to change, the structure of socioeconomic organization itself will have to change first.
Last edited:
bdubyah
Hunter
I mean, it seems like your heaping all the sins of the gaming world on TFP's shoulders. Just because other studios have done what you mention doesn't mean they will. Or maybe they will, who knows. But maybe save the outrage for when it actually happens? It took them well over 10 years to put out any DLC at all. If you think they secretly have motives to start milking players for every little addition, why'd they wait so long? Wouldn't they have been better off starting a long time ago so they could creep little bits in here and there? You guys are acting like TFP invented DLC and cosmetics or something. If you refuse to play or support any game that does what TFP have done with their DLCs, your list of playable games these days is gonna be pretty ■■■■ short. DLC is optional. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But why waste your time crying about it here? It's not going make them get rid of it.
People saying they removed the ability to dye armors just so they can add it back as DLC seem to forget they created all these new armors from scratch. These armors have never had the ability to be dyed, so how did they remove it from them? It would've been more work to allow it, and apparently they didn't deem it a priority. Everyone wants to just jump straight to the most extreme possibility so they can rant about it.
InfiniteWarrior
Scavenger
"Cosmetic DLC" preys on FOMO. That the social issue with it. Saying "it's optional" doesn't change that.
bdubyah
Hunter
Putting issues people have on game devs is silly. I own tons of game with tons of DLCs and skins and ■■■■ that I've never bought, and never will. I don't see how FOMO applies unless they are pushing them as limited time or something.
InfiniteWarrior
Scavenger
I agree. It's a societal issue.
Say you're playing Fallout 76. You see a power armor skin in-game you think is really cool another player is using and would love to have for yourself, but you can't afford it, not only because the price is too high (and, of course, it is way too high for what it is) or for any one of a number of reasons, but especially due to massive economic inequality. How would you feel?
Last edited:
theFlu
Hunter
Stupid, for wasting my PC on a video game and not creating apps to sell.
bdubyah
Hunter
If it looked cool and I wanted it, and it was what I consider a decent price, I would buy it. If it was too expensive or whatever, I wouldn't. I play a lot of Rocket League and have spent more than I wanna know buying cars and decals in that game. But when they shifted away from crates and keys, and even now away from single cars to a lot of big packs that cost way more, I stopped buying nearly as many. And a lot of RL stuff will be unobtainable for lengths of time as they rotate their store offerings regularly. Doesn't make me any more tempted to buy something I don't feel is worth it. If another person can't fight that urge, that is on them, not the game. That's like blaming a casino for someone ruining their life gambling.