Share your unfiltered, unpopular gaming opinions and let's dive into some real discussions. If you come across a view you disagree with, feel free to (respectfully) defend your perspective. I don't want to see anyone say stuff like "we're all entitled to our own opinions." Let's pretend like gaming is a science and we are all award winning scientists.
My Unpopular Opinion:
I believe the criticism against battle royales is often unwarranted. Most complaints revolve around constant content updates, microtransactions, and toxic player communities
Many criticize the frequent content updates, often cosmetic, as overwhelming. However, it's optional, and no other industry receives flak for releasing more. I've never seen anyone complain about too many Lays or coke flavors.
Pay-to-win concerns are mostly outdated; microtransactions are often for cosmetics. If you don't have the self control to not buy a purple glittery gun, then I'm glad you don't play the games anymore, but I don't think it makes the game bad.
The annoying player bases is the one I understand the most. I don't really have a point against this except that it's better to play with friends.
Overall I think battle royale games are pretty fun and rewarding. Some of my favorite gaming memories were playing stuff like apex legends late at night with friends or even playing minecraft hunger games with my cousins like 10 years ago. A long time ago I heard in a news segment that toy companies found out that people are willing to invest a lot of time and energy into winning ,if they know there will be a big reward at the end, and battle royales tap into that side of my brain.
This is just my opinion
If not microtransactions for cosmetics, then what would be a better business model in your opinion?
Step 1: You buy a game. There is no step 2.
Actual meaningful additional content (which never under any circumstances removes old content) as an expansion is fine. Paid cosmetics cannot be. Microtransactions in any format cannot be.
Would that actually be sustainable for a game that's constantly changing? The ones I'm familiar with are League of Legends and TFT, so I'll use those as examples. These games rely on having a large playerbase, or else matchmaking will be all over the place and it wouldn't be any fun for anyone. Having to pay for the game would shrink that playerbase considerably. Having to pay for updates makes this essentially a subscription model, since it's makes no sense to maintain old versions of the game and further fracturing the playerbase that is already small to begin with, and subscriptions will also deter a lot of people from playing the game.
If it's one of those single player story-based games that you play once and never touch again, then yeah, the model makes sense. Though I don't see the harm in having the option to buy cosmetics. It's not something I'm personally interested in so I just don't touch that stuff, but I like that we're valuing the work of artists more.
I didn't like MTX like OP until someone told me MOBAs only really work that way because people have to play similar content constantly and the only way to keep that novel for a wide playerbase is consistently added content, and that only works if the company can continue a revenue stream, and for a free to play model to allow a constant influx of new players to sustain the playerbase.
And to say that MOBAs don't deserve to exist would be insane, Heroes of the Storm is one of my favorite games of all time now since I can play VS AI with no toxicity, and even though it's frozen on maintenance mode now I can only enjoy it so thoroughly from the sheer amount of characters and content allowed by the free to play MTX model that brought it all there.
If it's not sustainable, your game doesn't deserve to exist.
Microtransactions are unconditionally a purely evil business model with no redeeming qualities under any circumstances. There is no circumstance where they can theoretically be forgivable.
What about microtransactions makes them evil? Is your gripe just about loot boxes? Or paying for art? Or is it the middleman? I don't understand how charging for art in the context of a video game can be inherently evil.
Everything. Parting out core elements of a proper game into separate purchases is a fundamentally abusive business model, designed for the sole purpose of manipulating dopamine to rob whales blind.
Cosmetics aren't any different than anything else. The only possible valid way for them to exist is to have them be earned in game. You're the exact same piece of shit if you charge money for a shotgun as you are if you charge for a shotgun skin. "Premium" classes of players based on spending are not, and cannot theoretically, be OK.
"My game needs an unforgivable business model to exist" (ignoring that that has never once had any basis in reality) is not a justification for being a piece of shit.
It sounds like we just disagree on what constitutes a core element of a game. I'm very happy to not have to pay for things I don't care about, but I can understand that it sucks when you do care about it and there aren't as many people to split the costs with.
Everything is core.
There is only one thing that is permissible to charge for in any context: actual playable content. That's not a multiplayer character, it's not any cosmetic, it's not anything but new maps, new stories, or new game modes.
Na, I don't agree here. I have played a lot of Free to Play games that rely on microtransactions for cosmetics and spent so many hours in these games and never, ever spent a dollar. Probably wouldn't have bought them if they were not F2P either. Only game I've ever bought a cosmetics pack was a Support pack for Deep Rock Galactic, because that game is so fucking good (yeah I know, not F2P).
If your game is Free to Play and you get money by microtransactions for cosmetics, I have no issues with that. Because I am someone who usually loses interest in games pretty fast or like to play many different games with my friends, so I personally am spending way, way less money this way.