995

Ignoring the lack of updates if the game is buggy, games back then were also more focused on quality and make gamers replay the game with unlockable features based on skills, not money. I can't count the number of times I played Metal Gear Solid games over and over to unlock new features playing the hardest difficulty and with handicap features, and also to find Easter eggs. Speaking of Easter eggs, you'd lose a number of hours exploring every nook and cranny finding them!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] menemen@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago

Maybe I am old, but having no micro-payment bullshit is what made gaming better.

[-] smeg@feddit.uk 14 points 8 months ago
[-] menemen@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah, but Arcades are Arcades. They were also not really a thing in Germany (because they are 18+ in Germany). I only ever used them on vacations.

[-] smeg@feddit.uk 8 points 8 months ago

My point is that they are representative of how gaming used to be. Good on Germany for treating addiction-based money-extractors as what they are though!

[-] uienia@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Not really a microtransaction as much as a leasing payment

[-] smeg@feddit.uk 3 points 8 months ago

I'd say they're both microtransactions, just one is full-on pay-to-play

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

You could buy most of those games for console though...

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 5 points 8 months ago

The cheap downgraded version, yes

[-] smeg@feddit.uk 4 points 8 months ago

Not before consoles existed you couldn't!

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 8 months ago

there are plenty of modern games without micropayments, play smaller indie titles.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 6 points 8 months ago

Or indeed some bigger games not from shitty publishers.

God of War, for example. A lot of Sony's exclusives (and many are now on PC) are completely MTX-free. Even EA's It Takes Two was free of them.

The issue is that they don't make the return on investment that an exploitative multiplayer game does. So the big publishers prefer to make those.

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It takes two is actually one step further, only one player had to own the game. It takes two had what was called a friend pass which as long as you weren't the host of the game allowed you to play with any other player that had already purchased the game. So despite the fact that it was forced Co-op either split screen or online, only one player had to actually buy the game.

In this day and age it blew me away when I learned that because it's just unheard of now.

this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
995 points (95.4% liked)

Games

32710 readers
356 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS