Just wanted to point out that the binary arguments between “money needed to support the game” vs “don’t pay a dime to receive attractive cosmetics” often miss what I think is a key factor, especially per the game’s stated goal of extended longevity: keeping non-spending players invested via earnable credits or other in-game progression-tied escalating rewards helps maintain part of the multiplayer population, which all of us–spendy or not–rely on to sustain the game we all have in common.
Agreed. Seems that encouraging both the “I enjoy only the gameplay and don’t care about cosmetics at all” and “I enjoy earning rewards but don’t want/have money to spend” populations to continue playing benefits all players. If the perspective refocused from “few free cosmetics vs many paid cosmetics” to “regular free cosmetics vs premium paid cosmetics” like the other leading f2p games have done, that reward loop would keep a good chunk of non-paying players invested. And what’s the harm? Consumers who are against paying for cosmetics on principal wouldn’t pay for premium cosmetics anyway, so there’s no opportunity cost there, just potentially longer play life from those players. But what do I know, I’m just a data point in the Great Journey of this game’s revenue generation strategy.