Whether it's any more exploitative than any other game, it's still got all of the same baggage. It's always online and will one day be unplayable, and it's relying on continual revenue to support it rather than just selling it for an up front price and letting it rock, which both encourage exploitative monetization anyway.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Ok. Unfortunately it sounds like you're asking me to stop liking a studio that I like, based on speculation about how a future title of theirs might work. That's not an actionable argument.

Nothing about a multiplayer title requires it be made in a way that will break whenever the official servers go down. You are assuming this one will work that way, and I'll grant you it likely will.

But the change we both want isn't going to come from voting with our wallets, but even harder.

It'll come from something like this.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not asking you to stop liking a studio you like, but I am asking you to take them off of the pedestal you put them on. If you care about the SKG campaign, that new shooter of theirs is at odds with it.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

...

That pedestal being, that they keep making games that are just plain good, despite at the same time being involved with shit industry practices by working with Microsoft and Epic?

I think that particular pedestal is pretty fucking deserved. And one that looks their faults in the eyes.

They keep making good stuff, while marred by the bullshit that allows them to fund the studio.

Why do you think I'm specifically excited for them to finally do something fully self-published, so they can make something I can enjoy with no fucking strings attached?