EDIT: Now that my router isn't being retarded half the time, I can finally respond..
black_knight1337 said:
No it shouldn't. Some people have a high income and are short on time so they don't mind paying extra to get through the game quicker.
"I want to get through this in my spare time...but I can't be bothered to actually play it in my spare time."
That doesn't describe behavior attributed to enjoying a game (or anything really); it describes paying someone to do your chores.
Here's what the dlc in question do:
-Instant upgrade for your ships storage along with some supplies
-Revealing the location of all the collectibles in the game
-Revealing all activity locations in the game
-Instant unlock for high end ship upgrades
All these are doing are making relatively easy tasks even easier. There's no reason why anyone who can sink a reasonable amount of time into the game would need to buy any of those. And even if you did want to speed things up, there's a number of tools you can use to do so.
So basically, Pay 2 Win.
I hope you realize that is not a compelling argument from the player's perspective.
Following that logic we shouldn't have any form of progression system in games. Just have everything fully upgraded from the start.
Well there's a loaded argument, since any point I make you can arbitrarily twist by defining it as "progress".
So what is "progress"?
Under an arbitrary definition, it could describe:
-Going from world 1-1 to world 8-3 in Super Mario Bros
-Spending the required 100+ hours grinding to acquire top tier gear in most any MMO. (without pay2win or other such shortcuts)
Obviously, those two are very, very different in terms of design and purpose.
Super Mario Bros, the content is 100% front loaded. You buy the game, you play the game, and you try to beat it.
For virtually any MMORPG you can name, the purpose is to provide bits of fun/reward between hours of busywork.
In design, the fine line between grind and progress is context and purpose; no matter how great/small.
Is the system of progress put in place as a test of the player's skill and reason?
Or just of one's patience?
A good game introduces elements/systems to add complexity to the game, not just for "things to do" or "stuff to get".
Busywork is a huge problem in gaming; it's appealing to developers because including it increases playtime at little effort on their part; Put simply, in design, grind mechanics are a copout of effort.
Once a player recognizes that fact, they're going to feel annoyed and cheated.
The fact that companies are monetizing that last step isn't helping.
Just because some people are willing to pay to make their progression through a game faster doesn't mean that the game is excessively grindy.
But it does. In the very context you're describing, the player has an incentive to skip content.
A good game, even a long one, can and should be enjoyed/completed in portions.
The moment you argued for an option to skip an element because of time, is the moment you admitted that portions of the game are undesirable solely for the amount of time they take.
It's an admission that the opportunity cost to play is worth less than the monetary cost to avoid it, and that is completely backwards when you consider video gaming as something to ENJOY in your spare time.
Just because some people TOLERATE it while others don't does not excuse its presence or deny its existence.
Far better is the game that doesn't waste the player's time with busywork of any kind, but rewards their skill and willingness to improve. And if the game isn't about skill (in some measure), then either the player's presence is meaningless or the game is just a chore; and I can think of better chores to do than those I have to pay for.
