I’m curious: would people prefer a single upfront cost on a game, in-game purchases, or for the game to be free but you need to support the developer through voluntary donations (which carry no reward)?
I prefer one single up-front purchase. That means there’s nothing for the game developer to gain by implementing predatory game design practices.
In-game purchases (excluding major expansion packs) should be reserved for f2p games only imo. And then the player should know exactly what they’re going to get. So no loot boxes.
I mean, there’s also nothing to gain for the developer by continuing development. Most f2p games only survive so long because of those microtransactions. Think about how long these games are supported, how much new content they get constantly. The “good old games” were one and done. If you got lucky, they might patch some bugs, but often that was left to the community.
I’m curious: would people prefer a single upfront cost on a game, in-game purchases, or for the game to be free but you need to support the developer through voluntary donations (which carry no reward)?
I prefer one single up-front purchase. That means there’s nothing for the game developer to gain by implementing predatory game design practices.
In-game purchases (excluding major expansion packs) should be reserved for f2p games only imo. And then the player should know exactly what they’re going to get. So no loot boxes.
I mean, there’s also nothing to gain for the developer by continuing development. Most f2p games only survive so long because of those microtransactions. Think about how long these games are supported, how much new content they get constantly. The “good old games” were one and done. If you got lucky, they might patch some bugs, but often that was left to the community.