This was going to be a random video intro, but I wanted to talk about it more.
🡇 More Information Below 🡇
Inkbound is an online roguelike from the creators of Monster Train. Craft powerful character builds in procedurally generated runs and battle your way past the inky hordes with a unique active battle system.
đź•’ Time Stamps
00:00 Introduction
03:07 Guaranteed Damage
10:14 Monetization
23:14 My Review
source
I like diferent videos, is very fun.
I'm still on the fence with this game. And good battle pass or not. Including it In your game is a tough sell if it isn't targeted at brainless normies. People who know of them are sick of them by now. Even me. I don't care if it's good. It's still battling for my attention and I don't want the "work" of filling up yet another battle pass. That's just the thing with them all. Its work. Work for attention. For time. Which we all have less of each day
Coming from someone that has not been following Inkbound and did not know about the live service nature of the game prior to watching this video (which I have only watched due to being a regular viewer of your Monster Train videos): everything you've explained in the monetization section has put me off the game. Live-service has already reached the point of infamy; Shiny Shoe will lose players like myself by the simple act of putting a "Buy Shinies" button in the top right corner of the shop screen, regardless of how optional that button is. If they're losing sales by making the game live-service…they have to compensate by turning a profit off the live service, which influences how the game is designed.
Just from looking at elements in the video, I've noticed:
– The SP and Shiny currencies are wildly inflated compared to similar metrics in Monster Train; this is a common tactic that live-service games use to distort the value of money and facilitate scaling costs. Is there a truly valid game design reason for the numbers to be so large?
– Forcing players to enter the hub at the start of the game, even when playing alone, is a method of advertising for the cosmetics other players are buying and wearing around the hub.
– Daily quests with rewards to encourage constant engagement with the game regardless of whether the player wants to play it. Monster Train and Slay the Spire have daily runs, but there is no meta-incentive to play them.
Even if they continue to be generous with the ingame currency once the game leaves early-access…the game is still designed around these microtransactions. Inkbound could release an optional $40 purchase that gives the player infinite Shinies, and I would still have to deal with design that prioritized engagement and retention over…fun.
It's good to see a review for this game going more in depth about things that turn people away from it before even giving a chance. Hope to see your videos on the 2 remaining classes soon, the ball guy is my favourite so far, but it feels a bit overtuned (still on gold 3 though).
I did not play the demo maybe because of that I did not mind the unavoidable damage that much, except possibly on the big chest boss at the end of market, since you can't even evade, but that boss was nerfed already.
I would hope people watching your videos already understand how great inkbound is. The steam reviews must be from people who don't appreciate how good the game is.
Hey, I just want to preface this that I'm very happy that the devs are listening to the community.
However I think it's important to note that as soon as someone puts up their game with monetisation, it is fully open for criticism as a full product. Early Access is a term without real definition, it's really only based on what the developers say, so when something is putting itself out there as monetised, it is fair game for criticism as the product is then and there.
And while I don't think the devs are malicious, I also don't think it's fully fair to say that just because it is their first foray into the live service market, then it's just something they didn't know. Ignorance is not an excuse for negligence, especially when there is so much material that has existed for years that criticises some of the things they tried to implement, even if it was not with malicious intent.
But like I said at first, I'm very happy that they have listened to the feedback and at least seemingly seem to understand why they got the criticism, not just that they got it. I hope that's a trend they'll keep up (in terms of monetisation, I don't really have any issues with the game or the new gameplay changes)
I think that a lot of the negativity regarding the Battle Pass is from other games having them and using them to take advantage of their players. Plus, there have been instances of games adding relatively tame battle passes and then making them worse after the initial praise of "Oh this isn't too bad" occurs. As well as the devs are handling their Battle Pass it will still be plagued by the existence of a Battle Pass. Your video does help to shed a lot of light on how the devs of this game are actively working to avoid the bad practices that the Battle Pass system is known for, and I appreciate that. Hopefully this becomes the first-ever live service game that's actually good.
One of the flaws of the Battle Pass system is that it creates a demand for players to put in a lot of time playing this game within a certain time frame. This might seem like a silly complaint, "Oh no the game wants you to play it," and all that, but it does so in a way that doesn't respect the player's time. You'll have to put in dozens of hours in order to fill it out, and then again in the next 3 months, and then again the 3 months after that, and so on. And of course you don't HAVE to do that, but it still feels like it's a task for you to complete every season, especially for players who may want to challenge themselves to collect all of the cosmetics in the game. For more casual players who might not put such a large amount of time into the game to regularly finish seasons, they might be pressured to grind a lot more than they would be comfortable with if there's an item they like near the end of the pass.
Moving everything into the Cosmetics Shop after the Battle Pass concludes is good, since it means that you never really miss out, and I'm glad that they're working on a way to improve the shop further. One issue I have with it, however, is that compared to the "pay and play" deal that the season pass is, most everything in the Cosmetic Shop seems a bit much? Especially the weapon/gear cosmetics, where a single piece costs half of a Battle Pass at the lowest, 75% of one at the highest. And then the bundle costs barely over two entire passes.
This will replace FOMO with fear of getting a worse deal. If you aren't playing enough to satisfy the Battle Pass, then you're not getting as many of the free Shinies from both the free and paid tracks. Which means you'll have less Shinies to spend in the Cosmetics Shop. You have to play as much as the Battle Pass demands each season or you can't get many cosmetics – unless you pay.
Another thing that I almost forgot to bring up is that by being a live service, this game has a limited lifespan. It will run as long as the devs keep the servers running. Monster Train can live forever because there's no more cost in having made that game, but servers cost money. There will be a day where the servers are shut down and Inkbound can never be played again, whether because it isn't worth the money or if the company for some reason stops existing. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, though. And maybe there will be an offline server-less function so that it doesn't have to be this way.
I don't want to sound like a complete downer, so I wanna also say that this game has been phenomenal and despite these flaws I have a lot of faith in these developers. Making a good Battle Pass when every other Battle Pass is bad is a real challenge.
The biggest thing about the battlepass/in-game transactions stuff for me that makes it so I don't mind it much at all is that it seems it's completely cosmetic. If I like the way something looks and want to support the devs I can, just like for any artist I like. If I just want to play the game, I can put in my 20$ and play!
Game is good.
I actually think that cosmetics as a way to support Inkbound is potentially a really clever solution to providing the game experience shinyshoe wants!
Below is a little analysis:
Say you are shinyshoe and have a goal of providing a multiplayer experience with your game. You're doing this because multiplayer inkbound is fun and engaging and a cool new way to engage with friends. In order to provide this, you're going to have recurring costs (from maintaining servers and other such). What kind of solutions might there be to provide this cool thing?
Let's consider a couple:
1. You just provide it, regardless: Unfortunately, with server costs, you now have a situation where you are getting an injection of money when people buy the game, but have a recurring cost (that grows whenever more people are using the server). This is financially unsustainable, and from a financial perspective, you'd be hoping to kill multiplayer as soon as possible to end those costs. You could delay the inevitable by making the cost of the game itself more, but that only delays.
2. You could sell a multiplayer subscription: This provides a second barrier to entry to one of the most crucial parts of the "fun", the multiplayer. It'd be counter to the entire idea of the game to begin with. This does, however, grow revenue with cost.
3. You sell cosmetics: You are now free to sell this game for a lower price and provide multiplayer without affecting the actual play experience (much; there is an argument that cosmetic visuals matter, but depends on person). The revenue from cosmetics would scale in line with multiplayer player-base growth, is completely optional, and does not create any barriers to the actual game.
I think the overworld hub is quite clever in highlighting the multiplayer vision that shinyshoe seems to be aiming for, and cosmetics allows for a great way to keep the lights running. While battlepasses are heavily scrutinized and criticized, the idea that all cosmetics in the game can be had for playing a decent amount and/or paying a lump sum seems pretty cool and is also aligned with incentivizing a multiplayer base to keep coming back, cultivating that full Inkbound experience.
Just thoughts from a hopeful gamer!
As someone who's been very against the monetisation in this game I'd like to counter a few of your points.
1. "They don't want people to see the system until they've been playing the game for quite some time"
I mean… that's actually a pretty common tactic. For example, most mobile games force you to play the tutorial and a few levels before dumping its monetisation on you. The idea is to get you invested beforehand. That is predatory. It's not really all that much of an issue when the reviews tell you all the information you need, but let's say they didn't exist. You'd buy the game, play 2 hours THEN find out about it. Doesn't look great any more does it?
2. The Free Premium Currency
Also funnily enough a way to sucker people in. Why do you think every mobile game ad has a code to get free premium currency? It's not enough to buy anything substantial on its own, unless of course you put in an insane amount of time into the free side of the battle pass. I'm 20 hours in, currently level 25, I'd need maybe 50 hours to get the remaining currency for the rest of the pass? But that also looks good for them right? It's that player retention, sucks more people in. Literally proven people are more willing to buy premium currency the more hours they have in a game, just a fun fact.
2.5. "Eventually I'll get all this stuff"
Well, I wouldn't say eventually, I mean you could've just bought all the levels right there and then. You have the premium currency to do so already bought ($200 "worth" of it as well, nice) really speaking for the people here.
3. "They didn't know about the stigma"
How can you not? In this day and age, where predatory monetisation tactics are being scrutanized under the actual law? Seems funny to me then that they clearly did their research, it's their first time making something like this yet it has all of the best features from similar products. So they did just enough research to know it would make them money… and just stopped, at the they saw dollar signs they stopped researching and implemented it?
4. "I have faith in them"
I actually do too. Patch 1.2 was a great first step to fixing these issues. Which, they are. That's the problem. There's so much consensus that these aren't manipulative (intended or not) when they clearly are. A lot of these predatory practices originally weren't even made by developers, they were made by marketing teams, scientifically proven to maliciously manipulate players.
In the end, do I care? Not really, I'm playing the game, I'm enjoying it. Do you care? Clearly not. But that's no reason to ignore and not warn consumers of the risks. The reviews are all, very valid. Discounting them because of your biases doesn't help any one
Was really excited for this game and was going to instant buy day 1, but the micro transactions and having a hub world where everyone first comes in thats more geared towards co-op completely turned me off. If it was advertised that way beforehand during the demo period, I might feel differently but I support indie devs because they don't do the things that AAA studios do and their games tend to have less bloat in them. There are so many other good games out now that I will wait on this one.
honestly i want to point out, the "you get enough shines for the next battle pass by doing the current battle pass" methodology sounds nice, but honestly its one of the nastier practices of the current video game industry
think about it like this: if you use the code to get the battle pass, and then you suddenly lose interest in the game, what are you going to do?
do you keep playing it to make sure you get your shinies back, and kill all the fun in the process?
or do you give up, and lose those shines? (and with them, your ability to keep doing battle passes for free in the future)
of course, you could also only buy the battle pass once you know youre far enough to recoup the cost, but at that point theres still pressure to play enough to reach that point (because otherwise you lose all that season's rewards)
its a good sign that shiny shoe is listening to the community, but its also a little concerning that they havent noticed any problems with the monetization before now
that said, its still possible that they realize their mistake and change the bad parts, so it's definitely not hopeless for the game
(although i will say, it'll probably always be at least somewhat worse than if it wasnt live service, since live service makes it really hard to add mod support
it wont make it unplayably bad or anything, but itll still keep the game from being as eternal as something like slay the spire)
The internet is filled with mis and dis information? Colo me shocked. 🙄
BTW… NO "cosmetic" only system ever stayed that way. Not one. You're fooling yourself.
Nah. You should not have done this video. You'll learn. You sound like a shill, full stop. I know that wasn't your intention, but that IS what you are doing. Stop.
Unsubbed
There are just some people who go on, frankly, losing crusades against any and every monetization in games (in fact you already have some in your comment here). It is a binary condition for them of good/evil based on yes/no on having any kind of monetization at all. Arguing against these people is useless because they see the phenomena through an eschatological in which their 'beloved' gaming industry is corrupted and everyone is out there to fleece every money out of your pocket.
Monetization by itself inherently manipulative. If the dev creates a super cool cosmetic isn't that manipulative even if it's subjected to your case? The matter of fact is monetization is always contextual and case-to-case basis. Even what Dusk said as "FOMO" sounds hilariously exaggerated for me who play FOUR gacha games daily. However the distinction between gacha mobile games and an buy-to-play indie game with live service feature does not matter because the manipulative nature of…..trying to sell things. This is why only a complete purge of any trace of all monetization where it would be enough for them. But even then, "the trust has been broken" says these people and in the end you're just catering to a group of puritan bullies that won't (re)buy your game in the first place.
I'll just be frank: the MTX ship has sailed, and not every indie developer lucky enough to be Supergiant Games (Bastion, Hades), Kinetic Games (Phasmophobia), or Mega Crit Games (Slay the Spire) where they pioneered a genre, become a mega hit and their pay-to-play game is enough to sustain them indefinitely. Some studios desperately need something that can sustain them for a while and that just the HARSH reality of the industry. You (anti-monetization crusaders) posting 500 words essays on the evil and the manipulative nature of mtx on newly released indie games wouldn't change shit when other similar indie-ish game like DRG have done the exact thing, and we haven't touch AAA mega games like COD.
Although I agree entirely on the unavoidable damage part of your argument, and I recognize that it is entirely possible that the cash shop in premium currency aspects of his game will never cross over into predatory territory. The bottom line is that these types of practices and I'm talking about battle passes and premium currency and cosmetic only shops have been used in the past by Developers an extremely predatory ways. There are a lot of instances cosmetic only shops suddenly becoming non-cosmetic only and although those communities often back last some extent, there is often times no recourse for players not willing to be exploited for not interested in being nickel-and-dimed. Microtransactions are never a win for the player and although I do think that it is possible for developers to use them in a semi acceptable way they will often times cross those lines at every opportunity available, there are so many examples of this occurring that it would be a complete waste of time to even begin to list them. People are absolutely right to be mistrusting of this and quite frankly are not wrong to criticize it. A microtransaction cash shop and DLC have no place in An Early Access title, and quite frankly microtransactions have no place in a title with an upfront cost
Any word on controller support on Steam Deck when it is docked?
People are kinda tired of monetization in a paid game, and the online hub can be a bit daunting, both things were shocking in contrast to Monster Train.
Added that to the isometric perspective and when looking it up with a friend we were reminded of stuff like Diablo clones, Path of Exile… I'm really not a fan of seasonal stuff and those addiction loops.
I'm kinda convinced on buying this game, thanks to your comments and looking up other videos, but first impressions were rough.
Micro transaction is only justifiable for free to play games. Paid games SHOULD NEVER include micro transactions, unblockable should be behind a reward wall not a pay wall.