Post by firecat in Better support for small DLCs

Viewing post in Better support for small DLCs

AAA companies are using everything to make people buy their game. Including the free games you would see in mobile, let me tell you what they are doing on free games:

- Lock powerful or cute characters and or weapons

- Pay-to-win method

- EXP is very low

- gambling

- subscription

- DLC

and more this is just the common you see, there are much worse examples.

Many indie developers who do not know the methods or tricks will often do it wrong or worst then AAA companies. A few free games i played did microtransactions horribility:

- they make you see ads or the ads are just scams that do nothing.

- they never test anything or balance the game.

- awful connections

- running away or bad support

- the game gets abandoned.

I can not trust any developer with microtransaction, i and many of us are inexperienced to bring microtransaction. Not even plugins can help because something will go wrong every time. Dong microtransaction means maintaining the game it is what a mmo should be but isn't. So again if a company or game relies too much on microtransaction then it shouldn't do it. If no one understands how to do microtransactions fairplay for everyone then that game should not be using it.

i don't know itch.io plans but it has been staying alive this long so i'm guessing they have a good plan going for them.

Like Reply

Innersloth6 years ago (2 edits)

Closing off an entire technology because you don't like it is kind of a ridiculous demand. I'm not particularly for pay-to-win or extra grinding, but there's nothing inherently wrong with paid content, subscriptions, or DLC. When creators create something, they deserve compensation. If they are willing to accept gratitude and having players, that's their choice, but if they want money, then they should be enabled to make money in a way that works for their game.

If I make a game that's free and totally playable, then perhaps you *should* have to pay for the optional cute and/or powerful things.
If I make a game that requires constant server access, then perhaps you *should* have to pay for the right to use the server.
If I make a game that gives you hours of enjoyable play, then perhaps you *should* have to pay for additional hours of gameplay.

Even pay-to-win is a defensible position in non-multiplayer scenarios since it *can* (I'll admit it often doesn't...) enable players to play the way they want and at their own pace.

There are bad games, there are bad creators. But every other creator and their games shouldn't be held back because you've had a bad experience.

At the end of the day, we can both go around and around with our beliefs but neither of us will be the decider and it seems like neither of us appreciates the others' views.

Like Reply

firecat6 years ago

Valve has everything you want and guess what happen to Steam, it became a place where scammers get money. There is also laws about loot box that first time indie developers don't even understand and Steam themselves had to change because of laws.

Itch.io can not go to the same route like Steam with it's many mistakes including parts where the government gets angry. It is just better to never add those features in the first place. You still can do the same thing with servers but not with itch.io help.

Like Reply

Innersloth6 years ago

Cool. Thanks for your voicing concerns. Maybe someone from itch will read it.

Like Reply