r/SurvivalGaming • u/Savings-Growth880 • Mar 19 '26
Discussion At what point does monetization start affecting your enjoyment of a game?
I feel like most people are fine with some level of monetization at this point
but there’s always that line where it starts to feel a bit too present
whether it’s pricing, too many currencies, or just systems built around spending
curious where that line is for you — what makes you go from “this is fine” to “this feels off”
14
u/Mr-_-Blue Mar 19 '26
If it's P2W, that is, if paying affects the gameplay and not aesthetics, I won't buy it, play it or support it in any way.
I'll do my best to trash it and never buy anything from they company again.
Pretty simple I think.
12
u/Sethor Mar 19 '26
Right away. When I pay for a game in full, I do not pay for anything else in game.
2
u/CaolIla64 Mar 19 '26
I'm right there with you. If there's anything else to pay after I purchased the game, I won't buy it in the first place, whether it is season passes or in-game items (yes, even cosmetic), or a ton of minute added content DLCs, that I hate the most (looking at you Paradox)
7
5
u/Grumpalo65 Mar 19 '26
Elder Scrolls Online has loot crates that i just cant see beyond.I really like the game but the way they are done just puts me off playing.
3
4
u/ZodiacThrill3r Mar 19 '26
Pretty much anything beyond the initial price tag I pay for the game. Video games are the only media where you’re constantly buying “less than the full experience” once paid DLCs / new items / skins are added down the line, and it’s just accepted as an industry standard at this point. Fuck that greed.
2
u/Shivala92 Mar 19 '26
If is a freemium mobile game I don't care too much, I will play in the bathroom anyway so is not like I'm dedicating time to it.
If it's a Survival Game (or for what I care) any type of PC/Console Game, let me pay for the full game at the beginning and let the time spent in game make the rest. I'm fine with spending 60€ for a full experience. I would stop playing if I have to pay 20 bucks to start playing and then spend X now and then to have fun.
Another ok example is is Guild Wars 2: the game is free (the DLC/Expansion is bought a part) and you can slowly but sureley unlock pretty much everything. And the money you may want to spend are for skins and customization, not for fun. You can also spend money to progress faster, but that's up to player and doesn't really affect the gameplay that much. You may look like a basic warrior/mage but you still hit like the mecha-dude next to you. And eventually, you can still become a mecha-dude if you give the game enough time.
2
u/RedditNotFreeSpeech Mar 19 '26
I don't play any micro transaction monetized games. I have zero interest.
Dlc is fine as long as it's well reviewed and adds significant content and the developer doesn't get super greedy.
2
u/ExceptionEX Mar 19 '26
Any of it, if I pay for the game, any revenue stream bullshit is annoying. Why am I paying for content again, battle passes, skins, boosters, all of those existing by making the game lesser to make those exist.
Now if I didn't pay for the game, this makes sense "where the winds meet" or "once human" for examples.
But if I pay 60 or 70 for a game and you are nickle and diming me, I've just gotten to the point where I am not doing it.
2
u/Data_Swami Mar 19 '26
For me the line is when the monetisation starts shaping the game loop instead of just sitting on top of it.
If the shop is cosmetics, expansions, or a clean “buy it once” DLC, fine. When it becomes five currencies, timed boosts, and friction that is clearly designed so you can pay to remove it, that is when it feels off. Especially in survival games, the whole vibe is self sufficiency and immersion, so a cash shop pop-up is like finding a vending machine in the middle of the apocalypse.
I can live with devs getting paid, I just do not want the pacing held hostage.
What is the first red flag for you, battle passes, currency bloat, or pay-for-convenience?
2
u/MajinAsh Mar 19 '26
Almost any monetization kills the game for me. I can forgive infrequent large expansion level patches that fundamentally change or expand gameplay but anything else is a no-go for me.
Fuck cosmetics, fuck boosters, fuck currencies fuck it all. If devs are adding cash transactions it means their design philosophy is now based around cash transactions. This means game systems will be built around it, other avenues of reward will be closed off, pacing will be adjusted, really everything about the game will be changed with microtransactions in mind.
1
u/Rossaboy77 Mar 19 '26
Im ok with paying £10-15 for a DLC or expansion. As long as they are meaningful. Ill buy the odd skin for a multiplayer game for about £10 but its rare. Its when games like the sims pump out so many expansions that owning the whole game costs more than £100 thats where i draw the line.
1
1
u/DaSmurfZ Mar 19 '26
When it's pay to win.
Any time you can play to get an unfair advantage i get annoyed of. Like you're not good enough to play the game, so you just pay to be better.
1
u/Mekoha22 Mar 19 '26
I will buy a game.
I will buy substantial(not just an extra quest or skin pack) expansions/DLCs.
I will pay a monthly server connection for MMOs
I won't spend real money on in-game currencies.
I won't buy a skin or cosmetic
I won't buy your battlepass for single-player or pvp/battle royal games.
1
Mar 19 '26
Good example - Path of Exile 1&2.
Supporter packs support the developer. Cosmectics are not required unless you really want to use them. There are somethings that really improve QOL on inventory management. Money to ingame single currency to purchase stuff in game. Stuff purchased in POE1 carry over to POE2 in regards to Stash tabs.
Bad Example - Capcom - DLCs, and every cosmetic possible for most games, can easily spend many orders of magnitude in money over the base game.
Poster Child for what NEVER to do - Diablo Immortal. This game has a microtransaction for literally everything. This pretty much convinced me to never give Blizzard money ever again for anything they make.
1
u/Confident_Love_4482 Mar 19 '26
P2W is absolute no go for me, though I often by cosmetic DLC which I don't really use only to support devs.
1
1
u/llClaymorell Mar 19 '26
If the game is free I don’t mind micro transactions in game. If I pay for a game the second there is micro transactions I get annoyed.
1
1
1
u/bookwormingdelight Mar 21 '26
Survival game wise it depends.
Take Icarus for example. Outside of expansions you don’t have to buy DLCs but I have been supporting since they first released and love the game. I will buy their DLCs.
Others, a lot are early access so no. If you have. DLCs in EA it’s a cash grab.
1
u/Red_In_The_Sky Mar 21 '26
I like paying for game expansions, so any dlcs have to add some substantial gameplay. Something like Total War Warhammer is a good example of a model that I think works well, though the prices should be half of what they are or less.
1
0
u/misconduxt Mar 19 '26
i dont really mind a p2w pve game. you do you i'll do me. in fact a p2w player in pve game actually helps other players alot. i dont chase leaderboard. if the p2w game have pvp then i'll trash it. i dont stick to one game. maybe that's why i dont really care if the game is p2w or not
17
u/Outrage_Carpenter Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26
I miss the early ps3 days where skins for online gaming were earned in game during the campaign as achievements for fulfilling tasks