The one version of this business model that I do find truly objectionable and probably bordering on illegal is when they "update" an existing application which has been in post-Beta release form for quite some time (hell even if it was still in Alpha, I think the model is objectionable) and which was not previously a MT model but which is adapted to that model. They won't get any more of my consumer dollars that is for sure, but then they don't care about the anecdotes anyway. I have no desire to promote such a business model, and in fact will speak against it when it seems prudent, but if a particular business wishes to do it, that is their business. One must be suffering an actual addiction to continue on that path for very long, and while the IP owner/creator/producer/publisher may well reap sufficient rewards to justify the system even if 90% of users curtail their micro-transactional indulgences during the "pre-negative correlation" phase, the ethics and long-term sustainability of the business model strike me as extremely questionable. I learned my lesson with EVE Online and Magick the Gathering Online: ingenious money pits in which the initially somewhat positive correlation between expenditure and enjoyment soon transforms into no correlation thence into a negative correlation. I will NEVER purchase another game which uses a micro-transaction dynamic. If they wish to pursue alternate forms of revenue with KSP 2, then as long as they make it clear enough in their marketing that I am not duped into purchasing it, it is of no consequence to me. As long as they do not IMPOSE "updates" to Kerbal Space Program which (thanks to Steams auto-updates functionality) cause current installs of the game to be updated to a version which includes micro-transaction malware, I honestly do not care what Take 2 does with their new IP.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |