You have over 160h more played on this F2P game than I do. Clearly only one of us has standards for what we will support and what we would not support. Suck a lemon about people like me being the reason for “bad decisions being made” when you’ll eat up any slop in front of you. 222 hours on this game? A game you hate. Get out of town with your finger pointing, you tasteless bum
There are also people that want Ferraris to be free. Has very little effect on the reality of the situation.
Wanting the game to be a full price release rather than free to play is a valid viewpoint, wanting a F2P game to give away it’s main source of revenue it just wishful thinking.
1 Like
If heroes of reach becomes free I won’t pay for another battle pass as they’ll be sending the signal that you can just wait and get it for free later.
1 Like
I paid the 10, felt dissatisfied and left. Their monetization has certainly had consequences. Maybe some of those millions would have stayed early on if they had a better launch experience.
1 Like
Imagine telling this to Lawbreakers buyers.
I didn’t spend that much time on the game. Plus, I didn’t say I hated it. I said it was heavily flawed and that there are much better shooters out there.
I did the exact same thing. I’ve only spent $10 on the game too, but i did not leave because of the monetization. I left because the game was in early access beta. Any one saying that “if the game cost $60 than it would have not have all these game breaking issues” is lying to themselves. The monetization did not scare people away, the game being broken and bad did that. There are plenty of other F2P games using similar monetization options, yet millions of people still play those games.
222 hours on one game in a year? That’s a lot of time. That’s like $5.6K->$10k before taxes.
2 Likes
Ah you’re just joking around.
There are plenty of F2P games that would beg to differ.
1 Like
Plenty of really bad $60 games want in on this action too.
Imagine telling this to Aliens: Colonial Marines buyers.
1 Like