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.
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.
Yeah, I can see that one. Using dark patterns is not ok
If you’re too weak to resist FOMO, maybe stay off the internet
Even so. There was once a magical time when games did not have FOMO at all.
Yes they did, not owning the game was FOMO, and they weren’t free at the time.