120
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
120 points (94.1% liked)
Games
32967 readers
1905 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't get the bitching. Is it brutally expensive? Yes. Do you have to buy it? No. In terms of stats the gun is nothing special, the armor is quite good, but not essential. For a one time crossover, it's fine.
It generates FOMO though. I remember when you didn't have to pay for stuff in games, so I personally still find it very shitty to have to buy skins etc.
I’m still a bit unsure how plausible it is to make a multiplayer game, keep it updated, and not sell content within the game.
The good devs restrict it to cosmetic options, but I can’t say I’ve moralistically stuck to that kind of perfection - I’m okay with new weapons/characters as long as they stay balanced against old ones. It becomes a sort of hazy issue.
Halo 3 and other games of it's time did well enough, and the multiplayer for them lasted way longer than most live service games.
Actual DLC was better than FOMO cosmetics in my opinion.
Hello? Halo 3 sold map packs, and possibly other things I’m not remembering.
That’s setting aside that Halo 3 was an exclusive. It wasn’t made to sell itself - it was made to sell Xboxes.
Yep, map packs are dlc. And it wasn't alone. Every multiplayer game worked like that at the time. Exclusive or not.