I'm not sure I fully understand his critique. He doesn't like the game because of its micropayments on the revives in the Roguelike, right? But then it's just like every other Roguelike, where you experience permadeath each time you die. Does that means he inherently hates all Roguelikes because they have the permadeath mechanic without the option for revives using cash or in-game currency?
His whole critique of this game hinges on the idea that micropayments are bad, and because he said they're bad the game is bad automatically. So, would Binding of Issac be automatically bad if it was the same exact game, but it popped up and said you could pay 99c to revive on the spot each time you died? Didn't he make his own Roguelike?
I don't actually understand what his major problem with the game is.
Note: I'm not sure if Let It Die is a Roguelike, I don't own a PS4, but from what all I've heard from my friends it sounds exactly like that.
My opinion : Microtransactions with anything to do with gameplay are fucking awful and shouldn't exist
It's not hard to recover your fighters without spending actual cash either, so I don't really mind the use of micro-transactions in the game. It's not the best model, but it's a lot less exploitative than it could have been.
Just because it's a better example of how microstranctions should be done doesn't not mean that micro transactions are a good thing for a consumers