• e-ratic
    link
    fedilink
    15
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Genuine question (I haven’t played it): If it’s a co-op PvE game, what reason could there be for not having the option of client-side hosting? You wouldn’t need to have a queue and have lower requirements for server maintenance. You could play on official servers or community servers.

    • Chozo
      link
      fedilink
      204 months ago

      Because it’s a live service game and has GMs who adjust in-game events in real time. Everybody is playing in the same world, which requires everyone on one server. The world and story adjust based on what all players accomplish.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        84 months ago

        That’s pretty fuckin nifty. Wave shooters aren’t really my thing, I burned out on L4D and DRG pretty quick, but this one will probably have some future consideration. Love the armor as well, big destiny vibes.

    • @gravitas_deficiency
      link
      English
      84 months ago

      Because it’s both tactical and strategic co-op. That’s part of why a lot of people like it - if you’re playing the game, you’re helping the fight.

    • ampersandrew
      link
      fedilink
      44 months ago

      Because if you have to play on their servers, they have more opportunities to upsell you on microtransactions.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        This is Socialist Robot propaganda! You have been reported to my local ministry of truth office scum.

    • verysoft
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I refuse to buy co-op games that have the online requirement/live service bullshit. It’s only done to sell you battle passes and shit.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        84 months ago

        Dismissing out of hand is the same kind of blindness as buying without checking the reviews. You can get the premium currency through play and there’s no time limit to the “battle passes”. It’s about as good as it could be implemented.

        • verysoft
          link
          fedilink
          -3
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          No, dismissing because of shitty monetisation is great. It could not be implemented in the first place.

          Buying a game without reading reviews is like buying a game with these shitty monetisation schemes.

          • @The_Lopen
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Did you read his response at all? I’m a third of the way through the current battle pass, which does not have a premium track, and I’ve only played for a couple days. No money spent except for buying the game initially for less than a standard AAA price.

            • verysoft
              link
              fedilink
              14 months ago

              The game could also just not have a battle pass. How are people already so indoctrinated into their existence? No paid games should have extra monetisation in.

              • @The_Lopen
                link
                English
                14 months ago

                It’s literally just a progression system. The pass never goes away, the paid currency doesn’t even correlate with pass progress. It’s literally just a progression system.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -54 months ago

        This is Socialist Robot propaganda! You have been reported to my local ministry of truth office scum.