• Viri4thus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    "“615 SC for a primary weapon is straight-up ridiculous,” wrote user Goopmaster_ in a top-upvoted post on the Helldivers subreddit. “”

    This is what passes for news today… Holy shit.

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      “Commenters online are SLAMMING pcgamer’s article on the Helldivers 2 controversy - click for more details”

      • Viri4thus@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 days ago

        slaacaa destroys PCGAMER’s coverage of the helldivers2 microtransaction implementation.

  • Murvel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 days ago

    Who the fuck is complaining? All the players I’ve played with think the armors awesome

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    9 days ago

    Helldivers players have no idea how good they have it. What a bunch of whiny entitled losers lmao

  • Zeusz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    10 days ago

    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.

    • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      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.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        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.

        • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          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.

          • Katana314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            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.

            • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 days ago

              Yep, map packs are dlc. And it wasn’t alone. Every multiplayer game worked like that at the time. Exclusive or not.

            • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 days ago

              I’d much rather buy a full game from the get go and have everything available with no time limit on when i need to buy it.

              There is no FOMO if you can leave it for years, actually get the game with all dlc cheaper second hand for a couple of quid and still finding a thriving community online that isn’t focused on completing timed challenges for various currencies to get cosmetics you like the look of before they disappear from the store or the deal for the cheaper price runs out.

    • Mora@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Is it brutally expensive? Yes. Do you have to buy it? No.

      Will people buy it? Yes.

      Will there be more brutally expensive items because of it? Yes.

    • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      They hire psychologists to explicitly figure out how to better make sales. Logical thinking will not win. Microtransactions, which consists of crap you don’t need, is a billion dollar industry and has bankrupted numerous homes.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          Thats true in a surface level way. Buts its equally true about cigarettes, heroin any other adictive substance you can think of.

            • Womble@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 days ago

              No but your argument that no-one is forced to buy cigarettes is equally valid to arguing that for micro-transactions. One is chemically adictive, the other uses physchological tricks and is almost entirely unregulated.