![]() ![]() Takes 5 seconds to see how long the queues are then decide to refund or not. Not to mention that within 2 hours you can get a FULL refund no questions asked lol. If you don't think you'll get 1.5-3hr out of enjoyment out of it that's on you, not on the game's price. That's literally an hour and a half of work at minimum wage. eredeti hozzászólása:if you can't afford $25, stop playing video games and get a job ![]() Please consider supporting Linux native if you are able. This is the most equitable design that seems to apply. Some players will use the free version and especially through EA and various updates, may eventually decide that paying the $25 or so is worth it, converting to a full paying sale. This will keep the user base up and give those who aren't yet sure they wish to purchase an opportunity to see if the game is for them, without needing to structure the whole title as a "F2P, predicated on microtransactions/lootboxes and other exploitative mechanics in the hope some players will invest" mechanic. ![]() Even within the multiplayer arena, there are those who like to play cooperatively.įinally, in the interest of keeping player levels available for multiplayer (cooperative or competitive), especially through Early Access, I would consider creating a free "trial edition" which allows players to experience a bit of the game without paying the full fee, yet still able to engage in content such as online multiplayer (cooperative and competitive). In addition, I'd encourage that besides competitive multiplayer, to also create co-op modes where multiple local or online players can work together in various forms of campaign, story, survival and other content, besides playing against other users. From what I've seen proposed, I'd encourage the developers to make a considerable amount of enjoyable campaign/story mode/expansion content that can be played single player, so that the value of the game is not carried entirely upon multiplayer "collect and battle against others" dynamics. With that in mind however, I do think that the developers should assess how much of their game's "heavy lifting" is intended to be done by multiplayer competition, be it in early access or afterward. I'd much rather pay for a well rounded game instead of being given the skeleton with the hopes I'll spend far, far more thanks to the kind of exploitative monetization we see commonplace with a lot of "F2P / item mall / mobile / collectible " games these days! While I understand the concerns of some, I think its worth stating there are many such as myself who will happily pay a reasonable up front "buy to play" price that encompasses all (reasonable - expansion packs down the line after EA is over and other content can cost extra if not exploitative) game content, whereas I wouldn't look twice at yet another "free to play" game that expects users to spend way more on microtransactions, cosmetics, or the like than what is being asked for the price of the title. I will keep an eye on the game and if I am proven wrong and it does foster a community, I will be happy, but I seriously doubt it. I thought this game looked cool, but with that high price point, I am pretty sure this game will not have a community, so I am not going to pay $25 so I can have a game that is essentially just waiting in queue. But it seems pretty clear the devs do care about the online, so those people won't help the overall long-term health of the game. You could argue that once the full game is complete it will have more single player content so it could get some of those people who don't care about the online aspect. I know devs need money to make a game, but overpricing your product and killing your community before it even exists is not how you do that. Expensive price (especially for an unfinished game) (likely) Low player numbers due to it's niche genre, and being a relatively unknown game Relies on a community due to it's multiplayer focus Like this game will alienate players in so many ways now: But the price is so expensive many won't buy it, but then those who would potentially be willing to pay the price will look at steamcharts, see the low player numbers and decide not to buy it because nobody wants to spend $25 on a game they can't play. Indie games like this already typically have lower player numbers, but this one relies on online, so it needs players. Charging $25 for an indie game where you need to have an active playerbase is a death sentence. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |