ePrivacy and GPDR Cookie Consent by Cookie Consent Skip to content

Monetization is the wrong way, and you know it.

BatSithCrazy.BatSithCrazy. Member Posts: 4 Civilian

Monetization is the wrong way, and you know it.

The introduction of monetization in a game like "Squad" could lead to players becoming addicted to the game and to the process of spending money on in-game purchases. This could lead to financial problems for the players, as they may find themselves spending more money than they can afford on the game.

Additionally, the game could be re-designed in such a way that it becomes almost impossible to progress without spending money on in-game purchases cause of that weapon skin that makes you harder to spot.  

This could lead to players who are willing to spend money an unfair advantage over those who are not. Making squad less enjoyable experience for players who cannot or do not want to spend money, as they may constantly be at a disadvantage when playing against others who have purchased in-game items or perks. 

Lets take skins "military clothes" instead of emotes, harmless right? 

...until you realise everyone wants to play riflemen because the devs are selling Ghillie Suits dlc making you almost invisible on the large maps, that's just one example.

It could lead to players feeling compelled to spend more and more money in order to keep up with others and to have a chance of winning. leading to addiction, and this could have a negative impact on their mental and physical well-being. This could lead to problems such as depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders.

Monetization in squad could be implemented in a way that it becomes essential to progress in the game, and players who don't purchase these items will find themselves unable to compete with others, this could lead to frustration, disappointment and ultimately make the game less enjoyable.

Second, monetization can change the balance of the game. If certain items or perks can only be obtained through in-game purchases, it can make the game less enjoyable for everyone as it can disrupt the balance and fairness of the game.

Some players may feel that the introduction of monetization is a sign of the developers prioritizing profits over the player experience. This can lead to frustration and disappointment among the fanbase, as players may feel that the game is no longer being developed with their enjoyment in mind.

Many players may be unhappy that the game was marketed as a "not for profit" game that would rely on community funding and support "kickstarter", and adding monetization would be seen as breaking that promise.

The company could use the data collected from the players to target them with ads and other manipulative tactics to get them to spend more money. This could lead to a violation of player privacy and trust, and it could turn many players away from the game. The company could also use the data to influence players' behavior or to manipulate them into making certain choices.

It's important to note that game addiction is a real concern and it's important for players to be aware of the warning signs of addiction and to seek help if they feel they are becoming addicted to a game. It's also important for game developers to be aware of the potential consequences of their design choices and to design games in a way that promotes healthy play. 

Overall, monetization can have a negative impact on the overall player experience and can be seen as a betrayal of trust from the developers to the community. Many players would prefer that the game is supported through community funding and support, rather than through in-game purchases.

Another reason for the backlash many players feel that the game's developers are not listening to their concerns and that the introduction of monetization is a sign of the developers prioritizing profits over the player experience. 

Comments

  • 3S_Moe3S_Moe Member Posts: 128 ★★

    Monetization is the wrong way, and you know it.

    Oh my word... Just stop. They are trying to find a way to fund the future development of their company or risk going under like so many have already done. They have provided FREE updates to Squad since Dec 4th of 2015. That is 8 years of FREE updates. EA has released 4 major versions of Battlefield in that time that people have paid for.

    Perhaps they need to not do emotes and DLC and instead just release major versions that will ultimately cost you the same (or more) money so that you can stop your whining?

  • BatSithCrazy.BatSithCrazy. Member Posts: 4 Civilian
    edited January 24

    You have to ask yourself. Why, ...why do they need to "find more money". Did the devs somehow lose their wallet by taking a walk in the park, or did they maybe bet it on the wrong hores, trying to be a publisher, instead of a developer? a business deal that went sideways? post scriptom anyone ?

    3 million copies sold, what happned to all that cash?

    Where is that money? Are these not valid question to be had? or do you want us to believe that there is only one narrative, yours.

    Project Reality was first released in 2005, it is 16 years old. It was developed by a team of volunteers who wanted to create a more realistic and immersive gaming experience for the Battlefield 2 game.

    Since its initial release, the mod has gone through several major updates and improvements "FOR FREE", and it is still actively being developed and supported by its community of fans.

    ...16 years of free content. not "8", 16 years and they have not made 1 dollar on it, should I keep going?

    Your argument is feeble, devs going under "if they dont do this, now". Project Reality, seem to be doing just fine, which lends itself to counter your argument for monetisation pretty easily.

  • MINTYMINTY Member Posts: 8 Civilian

    Offworld Industries founded some terrible projects with the money they received from Squad sales,

    Offworld Core - They are indie developer who Offworld Industries ''sponsors'' to make games like Post Scriptum and Beyond the Wire, in return they get percentage of the copies sold. Post Scriptum currently has 0 players in game, same goes for Beyond the Wire,

    Offworld Defence simulations - ''Bravo Project'' which they are working on and sinking money into in hopes that the US Military or any other military would use them for their VR training,

    I feel like its not our fault they are out of money. I dont see an issue paying $5-10 for Australia or China factions. If you enjoy the game I dont see why you shouldnt support its development but emotes is not the way to do it,

  • 3S_Moe3S_Moe Member Posts: 128 ★★

    I dont see an issue paying $5-10 for Australia or China factions. If you enjoy the game I dont see why you shouldnt support its development but emotes is not the way to do it,

    So how does that work? If I don't purchase the Australia or China factions, does that mean I simply cannot play on the servers that have those factions on their map rotation? Cause if that's what would happen, that's stupid, and I'm glad they didn't listen to you.


    Given your rant about how they need to consider the poor fool that can't stop paying for DLC content until they are homeless, how is paying for factions okay in your book but paying for emotes is not?

  • 3S_Moe3S_Moe Member Posts: 128 ★★

    3 million copies sold, what happned to all that cash? Where is that money?

    I have zero problem with you asking a question like that. If they sold 3 million copies, that puts them between $90m and $120m. After doing some research, I can see why they need to look for new ways to make money.

    Here is a breakdown of costs of a few games that I found:

    Grand Theft Auto V - 2013 - $265m

    Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - 2009 - $250m

    Star Wars: The Old Republic - 2011 - $200m

    I realize that Squad is not as polished or as big as these games, but clearly if that was the cost of these games at those times, then the cost is probably double that by now (the value of the dollar typically halfs every 10 years at the least.) So when I look at Offworld making $90m-$120m on Squad since 2015, it would seem to me that they are probably feeling pretty tight on the financial front. I'm guessing the people that work at Offworld are not exactly feeling as rich as everyone on these forums feels they should be.

  • Shaffer_29th_IDShaffer_29th_ID Member Posts: 27

    to late it will expand and get worse

  • Nickolas956Nickolas956 Member Posts: 6 Civilian

    I really don't get why you are so against new paid content, i would rather pay for new content than emotes, emotes are not content. I will literally never buy an emote because, one i'm not going to be wasting my time in-game doing emotes waiting to get shot, two i just never use emotes ever in any games, three its a waste of money because its not content its a dumb hand gesture.

    If i want to get killed doing an animation i will gladly vault over the wall so the enemy can shoot me in the face.

Sign In or Register to comment.