DST should be free

[Capybara007]

now this thread will last a week and it will be just people wanting to say the same argument that dst shouldnt be free

nice bait @Bugsworth

[Pixil]

If you want the game for free and ask me politely, I might arrange buying it for you
Not directed at OP but just anyone in general, really. I was thinking of buying 50 copies and giving them to whoever because to me this game is worth that much money
If it wasn't obvious, I think DST shouldn't be free!



Edit: where should I make a post for that if I were to? Sorry to deviate from topic!

[Maxposting]

when the thread is clearly bait so everyone has to make a post about it being bait, including me

[00petar00]

2 hours ago, Bugsworth said:

DST should be a free to play game as it collects data and has in game purchases. Both things that should only be in a free to play game. I think that it's pretty unfair for you to get payed to sell data ngl. Also unfair to have to pay for items in game. 

DST has been getting regular updates since release in 2016, Why do you think devs haven't stopped updating it? Its not about greed but about earning money to survive or for the effort they put in.

If there was no cosmetics or DLC characters they could've also stopped updating the game after they ported ROG.

[Mike23Ua]

“Technically” The moment DST goes on Xbox Gamepass it will be free to play..

*With Gamepass Subscription & Xbox Live required.

Dont Starve has ALREADY been on the Gamepass.. it’s only a matter of time before DST hits there too.

And that extra copy thing?? Yeah that’s PC only.. every friend I’ve wanted to buy this game for who did not live in the same house with me on Family share I’ve had to BUY that copy of the game for only for the largest majority of them to say they’ll play it and then never do.

Buying people games in hopes they’ll play with you because you get lonely & then them not playing the game you bought.. It hurts- But I guess that’s why I’m a #WendyMain… I know hurt far too well.

Ahem, Anyway.. My opinion on DST being Added to the Gamepass is that if it goes on Gamepass atleast THEN I won’t have to buy my friends the game before they can try it for themselves and decide they don’t like it.. 

Games put on Gamepass don’t stay there forever, so it’s like a few months rental before being pulled and you need to buy it to keep playing.

This is as close to “DST should be Free” as this game should EVER be.

[ALCRD]

This is the kind of bait thread that one usually sees on Steam discussion forums instead.

[Mx-Pain]

[JoeW]

If you don't find a thread or post interesting or relevant. Just move on and don't reply. Especially with additional, posts that have no conversational value. 

Keep replies polite, constructive and on-topic. Or don't reply. 

Thanks

 

[Theukon-dos]

As obvious OP's bait is, and how terrible their argument is aswell, I think there's enough nuance here that the answer isn't a clear-cut yes or no.

For starters, Klei's profits from DST are without a doubt mostly from skins and the like. Most easily demonstrated by the fact that

A. The game sells at a default of 15 dollars for 2 copies

B. The game regularly and frequently goes on sale for a mere 5 dollars, still offering 2 copies a purchase.

C. Don't Starve completely ceased development after the release of Hamlet. And it could be argued that said DLC wasn't ready for a full release yet.

 

So all 'n all, going F2P likely wouldn't effect Klei's bottom line in any meaningful way. And going F2P could be a good way to increase the player base. Either via new players onboarding who where interested in the game, but not enough to buy in. Or from returning players getting back into the swing of things because their friends don't have any excuse to not play with them anymore.

 

So going F2P would have some benefits, but again, not a clear yes or no answer. A greatly increased player base means a lot more potential for Toxicity. And as has already been said, going free would give griefers and hackers a lot of power.

 

So ultimately, not something that "Should" happen, but not something that should just be waved off either.

[LiamAshvinn001]

Ok, I can see how you possibly might could think this, but all, if not 99 percent of the in-game purchases are free? And u get it free for a reasonable rate

[. . .]

that would be very bad. game would become then as monetized as an iphone app it would be ruined

[Antynomity]

Well... How do I say this in a nice way? You're not really smart, the game is extremely replayable, goes on sale every few months (like 6+ times a year) it's a quarter of the price of a AAA game, and to bring back my point in a different way, it has way more content than most 60$ games on the market right now, and those games have a LOT worse monetisation than DST does, you can't buy meat or resources (unless you're playing on some chinese server that will probably get taken down.)

Edit: after some more thinking, It would probably be good for the game to go free 2 play, after all, the game IS cheap and most of the money is from skin purchases, if the game went F2P the game would probably explode as it's already pretty popular, and it might happen at some point, but the game defo does NOT need to go F2P, even with all the possible benefits that could bring.

On the other side though, since the game would be free, and has a somewhat cartoony art style, it would bring lot's of children in, and more children or young teens would mean that if some content creator explodes, they would have a lot of power in the community, it would bring a lot of griefers and overall more toxicity.

[ArubaroBeefalo]

why people are being so hostile against the idea? anywyas most of the money might come from buying skins and characters, do you really think that 5€x2 copies is enough to sustain this game? so it isnt a crazy idea since more people trying the game = more people that might stick playing and buy stuff. Maybe wont be the best for the game community because of the toxicity that f2p games bring or how easy is to get skins and characters via spools (not like other f2p games which are a grind fest if you want something for free) but still something to take into account and for that klei already gives 2 copies for 5€ so it becomes near free to encourage people to try it and buy their stuff for real profit

some people should think a little before calling others "not smart" for suggesting the f2p idea. Or maybe Riot or GGG arent smart for having f2p games that gives a lot of profits...

14 hours ago, Theukon-dos said:

As obvious OP's bait is, and how terrible their argument is aswell, I think there's enough nuance here that the answer isn't a clear-cut yes or no.

For starters, Klei's profits from DST are without a doubt mostly from skins and the like. Most easily demonstrated by the fact that

A. The game sells at a default of 15 dollars for 2 copies

B. The game regularly and frequently goes on sale for a mere 5 dollars, still offering 2 copies a purchase.

C. Don't Starve completely ceased development after the release of Hamlet. And it could be argued that said DLC wasn't ready for a full release yet.

 

So all 'n all, going F2P likely wouldn't effect Klei's bottom line in any meaningful way. And going F2P could be a good way to increase the player base. Either via new players onboarding who where interested in the game, but not enough to buy in. Or from returning players getting back into the swing of things because their friends don't have any excuse to not play with them anymore.

 

So going F2P would have some benefits, but again, not a clear yes or no answer. A greatly increased player base means a lot more potential for Toxicity. And as has already been said, going free would give griefers and hackers a lot of power.

 

So ultimately, not something that "Should" happen, but not something that should just be waved off either.

the only reasonable comment

[PrincessProblem]

The entitlement required for this post is just so out of this world

[Falkenpelz]

22 hours ago, Bugsworth said:

unfair to have to pay for items in game

But you don't? You literally can't buy anything that effects gameplay. Wanna stress real quick that there is a huge difference between having ingame purchases for skins or for game-affecting items. The last one is a rather scummy pay2win practice, which Klei doesn't do. Skins on the other hand are additional artwork. They don't affect the gameplay, you might just buy them, because you find them pleasant to look at. Heck, you even constantly get skins for free still...

[ArubaroBeefalo]

22 hours ago, Bugsworth said:

no, i just think its unfair. 

why? you only pay for cosmetics and extra characters that also can be obtained for free and a faster rate than in most games

[Theukon-dos]

3 hours ago, ArubaroBeefalo said:

why people are being so hostile against the idea?

Because OP made a terrible argument for why the game should go F2P that honestly came off more as bait than an actual conversation starter.

[Mike23Ua]

So uh I paid like 120$ for Injustice 2 on the Xbox One back when it released, that game has in game Microtransactions to speed up the progress of your leveling up/unlocking of stuff- That’s literally Pay 2 Win..

I don’t think the OP has any idea how generous Klei is with DST.. and to me: that’s pretty sad.

Most the time though once a game goes F2P that usually marks the downfall of the game, because then: it gets filled with toxic players: A larger fanbase isn’t ALWAYS a good thing.. & Being F2P Klei could add Pay to Win mechanics, Ads & whatever else that will ultimately make Me who paid for the game upset. “pay to remove ads?” Bruh… I paid for this game already!

The above isn’t a joke… it’s happened before, don’t let it happen to DST.

[Maxposting]

3 hours ago, ArubaroBeefalo said:

Maybe wont be the best for the game community because of the toxicity that f2p games bring or how easy is to get skins and characters via spools

This could actually lower the prices on the steam market by a significant amount.
The pros of this would be that people can get their funny tradeables, but also Klei could suffer because of the spool conversion.

[Notecja]

I am to day "no" but only because how it would open gates for griefers and some nasty people. 

All public servers would require lots of moderation to just keep them alive... 

[Cloakingsumo198]

I remember when TF2 went free to play, that's the day I got it lol and it's still a gem despite the lack of updates recently.

I always enjoy running into a fresh new player that doesn't know anything about the game.  They are the future of our community so it best to welcome them with open arms.

If it were free we would see a boost in players for sure and they'd continue to trickle in long after but I wonder how that'll affect klei's revenue.

[Bumber64]

I got DST for free, since I bought DS way back when.

 

[MondayNight]

Perhaps in a decade-or-so DS/T will be "free vintage". Till then one can get both very cheaply on special discount occasions (and Steam has a lot of such events, don't know how is on consoles though). Otherwise all skins (and special characters) can be woven-in via Spools, free of any real-money charge - hence your statement isn't truly valid (if not straight-up trolling, which it might be, eh).

[Masked Koopa]

Given how much of the content is realistically gated in terms of cosmetics + the 4 playable characters you'd have to save up for a looooong time to get without paying, I don't think it's an unreasonable take. While I'm not sure where I stand on it myself, I don't think it's anywhere near as unreasonable as many replies are making it out to be. It's not even a leading poll, or being expressed in a vitriolic way. 

To stay on topic, I think the main thing here is being acceptable now vs what was acceptable in the past. For many people, myself included, microtransactions in a paid game is a very iffy thing. DLCs (i.e substantial new content) have often skirted the line, but I cannot deny that the prices you pay for what are essentially just PNGs in most cases are not exactly fair. While one is by no means forced to engage in the skins side of the game, it also cannot be denied that collection and visual customization are also parts of a game people enjoy, and not as different to direct gameplay effects as many would argue. 

However, it cannot be denied that the mainstream games industry has moved more and more toward trying to push such a thing as being acceptable. Whether or not one accepts that narrative comes down to a myriad of things like opinion, but also background in which games they originally played.
 

And that isn't to say you have to agree with OP either, everyone is going to have their own threshold of acceptability when it comes to such things. 

[Cheggf]

10 hours ago, Falkenpelz said:

You literally can't buy anything that effects gameplay.

There are several characters you can purchase.