'Let it Die' servers shutting down, but offering players a onetime purchase to keep it alive offline
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/roguelike/let-it-die-is-dying-but-offering-players-a-onetime-purchase-to-keep-it-alive-offline/
235 points · 37 comments · view on lemmy.world
37 Comments
usernameusername@sh.itjust.works · 85 pts · 154d
So they won't Let It Die... heh...
JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works · 38 pts · 154d
I imagine the servers would have been shut down some time ago, if not for the confusion.
"So are we shutting down that game? What's the name?"
"Let it Die."
"Alright."
"What are you doing?!"
"Shutting down the servers...?"
"Why?"
"... You said let it die!"
"I didn't! I said it's Let it Die not let it die!!"
"What?!"
arctanthrope@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 154d
third base!
FEIN@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 154d
what?
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 154d
forestbeasts@pawb.social · 65 pts · 154d
This is awesome. Should be the normal way to do things!
-- Frost
grueling_spool@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 154d
I don't think Robert Frost said that.
warm@kbin.earth · -9 pts · 154d
Disagree, it should be at no extra cost.
fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 50 pts · 154d
It was free to play, it was a service game. Now with the offline option it becomes a product game, it makes sense to ask for a one time purchase money, no?
warm@kbin.earth · -2 pts · 154d
No. They can't prey on people with "micro"-transactions and then ask for money to get a game that should have been playable offline anyway. That's abusing the live service, free-to-play model for as long as it benefits them and then also asking for the price of a game afterwards. Let's not let them set a precedent here.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 154d
The precedent is that their live service game is now preserved in a way few others are doing. Buying the game shows that there's money to be made doing this, meaning others might have an incentive to preserve their shuttered live services, too.
fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 154d
It's a 8 years old game, asking some extra for an offline version doesn't sound abusive for me. You clearly disagree, that's fine.
OneOfNaturesMysteries@piefed.zip · 8 pts · 154d
What, they should just make games for free?
warm@kbin.earth · 5 pts · 154d
Live service games exist to extract as much as they can from people through the form of MTX. They should use that money to plan for the eventual shutdown of their game, not then ask people to pay for it. Just make it paid to begin with and scrap the in game purchases.
OneOfNaturesMysteries@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 154d
I tried to look at what they were selling and it doesn't seem like anything you're buying is actual content, but rather a shortcut to success. Microtransactions suck, but if ownership wasn't promised or implied anywhere, what are the players exactly entitled to? I just don't see any lies, broken promises, or failed expectations.
warm@kbin.earth · 1 pts · 154d
Unless you are buying DRM-free, ownership isn't implied for any game. They don't need the money to make the game playable offline, that work has already been done, charging for it is just trying to get one last cashout.
Hey that game you've been playing all this time, them purchases you've made, well if you want to keep playing, you have to pay us!
OneOfNaturesMysteries@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 154d
It is implied: most people do expect to keep a game if they buy it. There's no expectation to keep an arcade machine after inserting coins. Everyone who paid for extra lives or whatever powerups should have done so with a clear expectation that the online game that they haven't purchased will die eventually. Nobody is being duped or betrayed.
Giving it out for free would be nice and probably wouldn't cost them too much, but it's also unreasonable to demand something that was never promised. Damn, I can't believe I'm defending some free-to-play pay-to-win microtransaction online service hell game, but I guess even they can do something
rightnot wrong every now and then.village604@adultswim.fan · 1 pts · 154d
You didn't really answer the question.
warm@kbin.earth · 2 pts · 154d
Silly question. They haven't made a game for free.
village604@adultswim.fan · 3 pts · 154d
So you're required to spend money on in game purchases to play?
I play a "freemium" game and haven't spent a penny on it.
I'm not arguing in favor of the exploitative tactics those companies use to dupe people out of money, but you can still play most of them without paying.
It's absolutely within the realm of possibility that a chunk of the people that would buy a lifetime license are people who haven't spent any money on it so far.
And this is still a very rare move for a game company, and it's a trend that needs to start. Don't let perfect stand in the way of good.
warm@kbin.earth · 1 pts · 154d
It's not free to play because they are being generous. It's because it enables the most exposure to the most predatory model.
Would they have made the same amount of money with a paid game? Probably not, most free to play games know they arent interesting enough to sell like that.
Selling the game after the fact is just gross, not them being nice. The trend that needs to start is any online games just being playable offline from the start, or for free in the end.
Or we wait for legislation to hopefully force this, without any extra purchases needed.
OneOfNaturesMysteries@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 154d
Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 154d
They should make the free game, free-er.
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 153d
Selling it is reasonable since it was free to play, but imo anyone who’s payed past the sale price in micro transactions should get it free.
Magnum@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 152d
It was a free to play game ...
illi@piefed.social · 3 pts · 154d
Other commenter mentioned it's f2p so that would make a little more sense to charge for it. Depending on the price tag.
OneOfNaturesMysteries@piefed.zip · 39 pts · 154d
I sure didn't expect this from a free-to-play game. Nice job, GHM
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 154d
Back in my day games didn’t need live service for multiplayer!
get off my damn lawnAdulated_Aspersion@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 154d
How bad does your pee hurt, Grandpa?
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 153d
I don’t know, how does your enshittified half-games hobby run by venture capitalists with predatory fuck transactions hurt you little fucking shit? Go get grandpa a god damned beer and I’ll tell you about the wonders of game-spy AND DONT TELL YOUR MOTHER!
grueling_spool@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 154d
Offline mode is nice, but for a game with core online features they really ought to release a dedicated server.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 12 pts · 154d
Well I guess I'm glad I didn't like it because I just found out about it last week and was checking it out.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 154d
CharlesReed@fedia.io · 3 pts · 154d
I was obsessed with this game for a few months when it first came out. I've had thoughts here and there about checking back in to poke around, but I guess not. I'm sure my base is a mess from raiders for as long as I've been gone.
JoeTheSane@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 154d
This game
Rogue
Can we please stop calling every game “Roguelike”?
lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 154d
Yeah it’s clearly a Roguelite
Dagnet@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 154d
Agreed, TotalBicuit has a really good video on the difference between roguelike and roguelite
ampersandrew@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 154d
And even then you'll get the Berlin Interpretation people who would still say he's wrong.