Ignoring the lack of updates if the game is buggy, games back then were also more focused on quality and make gamers replay the game with unlockable features based on skills, not money. I can’t count the number of times I played Metal Gear Solid games over and over to unlock new features playing the hardest difficulty and with handicap features, and also to find Easter eggs. Speaking of Easter eggs, you’d lose a number of hours exploring every nook and cranny finding them!

      • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yeah, but Arcades are Arcades. They were also not really a thing in Germany (because they are 18+ in Germany). I only ever used them on vacations.

        • smeg@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          My point is that they are representative of how gaming used to be. Good on Germany for treating addiction-based money-extractors as what they are though!

        • smeg@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’d say they’re both microtransactions, just one is full-on pay-to-play

    • Swedneck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      there are plenty of modern games without micropayments, play smaller indie titles.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Or indeed some bigger games not from shitty publishers.

        God of War, for example. A lot of Sony’s exclusives (and many are now on PC) are completely MTX-free. Even EA’s It Takes Two was free of them.

        The issue is that they don’t make the return on investment that an exploitative multiplayer game does. So the big publishers prefer to make those.

        • Pika@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          It takes two is actually one step further, only one player had to own the game. It takes two had what was called a friend pass which as long as you weren’t the host of the game allowed you to play with any other player that had already purchased the game. So despite the fact that it was forced Co-op either split screen or online, only one player had to actually buy the game.

          In this day and age it blew me away when I learned that because it’s just unheard of now.