Eurogamer: Why Let it Die's microtransactions are great for the game

I'm disgusted with this headline's premise, but is Let it Die essentially harkening back to the arcade business model, providing a punishing (sometimes unfair) challenge in order to get you to spend additional quarters? Is that really a "great" thing for gamers?

lets see
>does OP have a brain?
ill go with a 'probably not'

>does OP really have to question shit thats obviously not good for anyone?
i hate you so much, OP

Arcade machines were a sadistic business design, but 1ccing a game was real satisfying. I don't think you can capture that feeling anywhere else.

This entire article is just a paid advertisement. Microtransactions are categorically never a good thing. Ever. Ever.

Sorry I didn't start another WHOS BETTAR PS4 OR SWITCH thread, senpai. I know that's the quality discussion you come to Sup Forums for.

You can make death in games scary by having it be permadeath

>I'm disgusted with this headline's premise
>Microtransactions are categorically never a good thing. Ever. Ever.
It's a free-to-play game though, how else is it supposed to make money?

Without microtransactions amazing games like Dota 2 couldn't exist. They're fine in f2p games.

Game is grindy as fuck, already dead and most people lost interest when you need 4 characters to progress because of random ass OHKs

By not being f2p

The problem with video game journalism is that it's a niche industry that relies on the industry itself to keep afloat with journalist who are. It really qualified journalists but rather fans of the things they report on leads to some hair brained articles.

By selling a product. I am not opting into a service, hence the game dying. Any and all articles/tweets defending this idiotic premise is advertising for the game. They are either getting paid, getting a kickback, or getting preferential treatment for it in some way.

Let them die.

>Microtransactions are categorically never a good thing. Ever. Ever.
This argument didn't even exist until fully priced retail games started having microtransactions. As a payment model it can be fine (emphasis on "can", doesn't mean it always is) solely within the type of game it originates from. It isn't categorically a bad thing.

>went to an arcade
>played a star wars game
>did the first level without losing a life
>"please insert more credits to play the next level"

This shit is why arcades are dead except for ticket machines.

Then there's the Sega gun games where there's a literal setting for "time until you lose a life" where if you haven't lost a life by a certain point, it puts you in an impossible situation where you will get hit.

No point of making a free game and then trying to make money off it

at that point make a proper priced retail game

I only spent 6€ on it to support the developer, I really didn't need to do it though. Downloaded the game way before it came in my country so it was impossible to purchase anything, I was around floor 32 when the store opened. Spent 2 of the skulls on bank space and the other 28 are laying around still.

I'm glad it's F2P because it's really inviting, I got 2 of my friends to play it and we are constantly chatting while climbing the tower and discovering floors with gold snails and trap rooms, etc

You don't have to grind for anything because Expeditions exist. I have so much excess money that I buy 50k decals every other time I go back to the bottom and I get invated because I have too many blue flames I can't even spend (already maxed my character slots).

When you die on floor 25 and higher the price to get your character with all gear intact is high, yes (although I always have 49 store spaces on the "mail" vault occupied with money to grab in emergencies) however it's not bad at all if you kill the character with another one. You do lose the weapons and armor but the cost of buying a brand new set of those is 20k to 40k max (which at this point in the game is nothing - that is if you don't already have a backlog of armor and weapons in the bank already)

Not to mention that you get so many OP mushrooms every hour that you really shouldn't be dying outside of new bosses. You have an endless supply of healing items, a mushroom that revives you at 50% health, mushrooms to either make you invisible (you can still attack) or slow down time and you can wipe out even the hardest trap rooms, mushrooms that stun haters, etc etc etc

It's a step or two above Souls punishment, I don't know of any other game that is more punishing on death than this (outside of perma death modes like those in Diablo) but that's why I like it. It's variety. If I want a more comfy ride I still have Souls games and NioH which is just around the corner.

>how else is it supposed to make money?
Does asking this question really makes the freemium model acceptable? What good does it make to you if it's free if in the long run it's designed to suck you dry for more money than you could possibly spend on it if they asked for $60 up front, so you don't have to put up with stamina system and whatnot.

No, microtransations are a mistake, it's good for basically anyone except for those trying to play games.

Is it your game motherfucker? No? Then it's bad. You should be focused on your wallet not their's. Ideally you'd want every game for free and only pay for shit you think is good solely so they can make more.

Everyone who doesnt understand the article is underage and has never played on an arcade machine

No way around it

Or they do remember and just accept that it wasn't an optimal solution. It was a business practice thru and thru, designed from the ground up to extract maximum profit instead of sell a product.

Get fucked shill.

>Is that really a "great" thing for gamers?
Since you seem to have read the article, how about bringing up the points it tries to make, so the discussion you are trying to instigate here can take off?

>Without microtransactions ... games like Dota 2 couldn't exist
really bad example, considering the original dota was made for free.

Even car journalism isn't as bad as video games journalism and it's full of shills who want free cars.

Oh, and valve throws enough money out of the window that whatever money dota 2 makes is irrelevant for them.
They could fund every single event and prize pool themselves having the entire game be free, and still bathe in money.

It is entirely possible to have the game without anyone paying anything for it, and valve could do it simply for the added attraction for steam, as they did with other games they bought and released for free.

arcades died. there's a reason for that.

sleep tight pepper

Yeah except to get more quarters the game actually had to be good. Now all they have to do is fool you with a fake trailer and you buy their unfinished boring garbage. Yeah way better business practice... for THEM

Because they werent as convenient as owning a console that played a billion games at home you retard

I remember using my free one day pass to raid noob players bases and just breaking their banks. Maxed out my own bank and used the SP to make increase the bank size.

The arcade premise was always bullshit. Always.

In fact, if you're going to make a F2P microtransaction-driven game, the WORST way to do it is the "Insert Credit to Continue!" business model. There's a reason the most succesful F2P games that ever implemented it have since moved away from it (see: Warframe).

It's bad for the game, both in terms of consumer-friendliness and in terms of generating profit for Grasshopper (since it absolutely kills player retention rate).

Let it Die succeeds in spite of its business model, not because of it

Arcade business models were awful, WHY would anybody actually want that shit back?
>It's an awful business model
>But it's a nostalgic business model
There are way better rogue-like games that don't have micro transactions to play.