No more buying.

corytutor

I got the curseword email. Lol. Gosh darn it

animaniactoo

Justice Jacks said:

DFiPL said:

For the people invoking console games, I want to remind you that "you got what you paid for" used to mean bugs didn't get fixed.

And that as recently as the 90s, $70-100 for a new game was perfectly normal.

It also meant games weren’t released with massive bugs as they could (and did) actually test their game before distribution. Now it’s “let’s release and we’ll probably fix what are players find broken next round.”

To be fair, MicroSoft basically proved that was a viable model given that they started releasing their OS' with *thousands* of KNOWN bugs... that they solved some of... eventually.

acescracked

With the PvP change there is no reason to spend money to enhance your roster.

40 wins can be hit with any roster. What's the need to have a robust kick azz roster? Old PvP as your roster developed higher rewards would become available to you. Now there is no point.

Taganov

Let's be fair, Whales. They gave you guys the entirety of PvE with the introduction of SCL scaling, 5* essentials in the only clearance levels that matter, and the new Shield Training event. That means you develop your roster at a way faster rate than anyone else anyway.

As to the PvP situation, I'm very much for the idea of wins-based progression, but I don't think us filthy casuls should celebrate just yet. The rewards structure fills me with more questions than excitement.

Nepenthe

I'm torn, because I like some of the recent changes, but win-based pvp (assuming no changes from the test) is probably going to drive me out of pvp.  Pvp had already become a slog since champing four of my 5*s, and 40 wins against only 5* opponents is a dreary prospect, and one I'm not going to buy healthpacks for. 

Ironically, I'll probably play enough wins to get the 10 cp, so I'm trading places with those who'd quit at 575 under the old system.

Justice Jacks

aesthetocyst said:

Justice Jacks said:

DFiPL said:

For the people invoking console games, I want to remind you that "you got what you paid for" used to mean bugs didn't get fixed.

And that as recently as the 90s, $70-100 for a new game was perfectly normal.

It also meant games weren’t released with massive bugs as they could (and did) actually test their game before distribution. Now it’s “let’s release and we’ll probably fix what are players find broken next round.”

They weren't??? Sounds like you didn't play enough games. Cutting losses by shoving flawed / incomplete hardware / software out the door is nothing new. 

Name names.  The biggest one I remember in the 80-90s was Pokemon for GameBoy.  But apparently I didn't play (or, even better, make) enough games.  Please enlighten me. 

Hendross

Justice Jacks said:

aesthetocyst said:

They weren't??? Sounds like you didn't play enough games. Cutting losses by shoving flawed / incomplete hardware / software out the door is nothing new. 

Name names.  The biggest one I remember in the 80-90s was Pokemon for GameBoy.  But apparently I didn't play (or, even better, make) enough games.  Please enlighten me. 

ET (Atari 2600)
Friday the 13th (NES)
Superman 64 (N64)
Shaqfu (Debatable)

broll

Hendross said:

Justice Jacks said:

aesthetocyst said:

They weren't??? Sounds like you didn't play enough games. Cutting losses by shoving flawed / incomplete hardware / software out the door is nothing new. 

Name names.  The biggest one I remember in the 80-90s was Pokemon for GameBoy.  But apparently I didn't play (or, even better, make) enough games.  Please enlighten me. 

ET (Atari 2600)
Friday the 13th (NES)
Superman 64 (N64)
Shaqfu (Debatable)

Biggest difference is those games are and were panned and usually hurt the company that made them. ET almost broke video gaming forever...   Now broken is just normal and expected and we’re all supposed to both accept it and like it. 

corytutor

Those were all horrible games 

Beer40

Hendross said:

Justice Jacks said:

aesthetocyst said:

They weren't??? Sounds like you didn't play enough games. Cutting losses by shoving flawed / incomplete hardware / software out the door is nothing new. 

Name names.  The biggest one I remember in the 80-90s was Pokemon for GameBoy.  But apparently I didn't play (or, even better, make) enough games.  Please enlighten me. 

ET (Atari 2600)
Friday the 13th (NES)
Superman 64 (N64)
Shaqfu (Debatable)

I've owned a Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Dreamcast, PS 1-3, and Xbox 1.

The quality of games has gone down since they are able to be patched online, in my opinion.

My friend had  Prototype 2 on PC and complained it was unplayable it was so broken. He said it happened all the time on PC. I was amazed then...

I can't recall Friday the 13th being bugged? Shoddy memory perhaps.

Nepenthe

Hendross said:

Justice Jacks said:

aesthetocyst said:

They weren't??? Sounds like you didn't play enough games. Cutting losses by shoving flawed / incomplete hardware / software out the door is nothing new. 

Name names.  The biggest one I remember in the 80-90s was Pokemon for GameBoy.  But apparently I didn't play (or, even better, make) enough games.  Please enlighten me. 

ET (Atari 2600)
Friday the 13th (NES)
Superman 64 (N64)
Shaqfu (Debatable)

Those weren't massively bugged, they just weren't good.  Though I rather enjoyed Friday the 13th, personally.  Even as terrible as ET was, you could play it.  (Why you'd want to is a different question.)  Now we see games that ship literally unplayable and needing a day-one patch - not to have the gameplay improved but to literally be able to run the software.  It's not even close to the same thing.

corytutor

I liked friday 13th too but never finished. 

wymtime

Here is the thing about buying.  It only speeds up progression in the early stages.  The farther you get in the game the less your $$ goes.  If you are a 2* player and drop a $100 on the game you jump to 3* land.  If you ha e a 5* champed and you drop $100 and you then go into a buy club you will get mostly 4* and maybe a 5*.  This is why the game Devs keep changing things for newbies so they will spend mor $$ so they can feel the pain of being a vet.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

corytutor

It definitely punishes you for growth

shardwick

Really the big difference between games that were released decades ago and ones released now is that you can follow a game's development online and see how it's progressing. Back then you just kinda had to go off of the pictures on the back of the game's box and then essentially just blind buy it and hoped that it didn't suck. These days just watch someone stream the game or get someone's review of it and then decide if you want to throw $40+ at it. Much easier to avoid buggy games these days.

IceyOne

As a newer player, I don't know the levels of your frustration on this game, but I can identify because I have watched Marvel Heroes Omega go down hill after playing it for over 4 years. 

Justice Jacks

Hendross said:

Justice Jacks said:

aesthetocyst said:

They weren't??? Sounds like you didn't play enough games. Cutting losses by shoving flawed / incomplete hardware / software out the door is nothing new. 

Name names.  The biggest one I remember in the 80-90s was Pokemon for GameBoy.  But apparently I didn't play (or, even better, make) enough games.  Please enlighten me. 

ET (Atari 2600)
Friday the 13th (NES)
Superman 64 (N64)
Shaqfu (Debatable)

Oh, my bad.  I thought I was asking for "flawed / incomplete hardware / software" not merely bad game design.  Or maybe not my bad, we may never know.  But it is clear one of us misunderstood the request.

Calnexin

Beer40 said:

Now this same style is invading my console games (NBA 2k18 for an example) and I'm afraid it will ruin them for me. I want to keep my $60 game at that price and not feel pressured to pay extra to compete.

Not that this is a great place for the general discussion, but I see this as the way things are going to be.

Game development is traditionally extremely rough.  Development costs are so high that selling a title for $60 only works if you manage to create a blockbuster every single time, and turning a profit requires that you basically axe most of your staff the day the game is released, maintaining only a small complement to address bugs.  Games with subscriptions, microtransactions, or other ongoing sources of revenue provide a greater return on investment for the producers, and greater stability for the developers.  Presumably, in the long run, the guys doing the work will become more familiar with both the game and their toolset, and make more and better content that adds equity to the original content.

The days where you were done at the disc are over.  Very few studios can make money that way anymore.  I personally see nothing wrong with that.  So long as there's market demand, there's no reason not to keep adding content to a "base" game.  If I enjoy it enough to keep playing it and am willing to pay for "more of the same", I'd rather do it through expansion packs or DLC than bona fide sequels.

Xenoberyll

Taganov said:

Let's be fair, Whales. They gave you guys the entirety of PvE with the introduction of SCL scaling, 5* essentials in the only clearance levels that matter, and the new Shield Training event. That means you develop your roster at a way faster rate than anyone else anyway.

As to the PvP situation, I'm very much for the idea of wins-based progression, but I don't think us filthy casuls should celebrate just yet. The rewards structure fills me with more questions than excitement.

I’m not a whale and still in 5star land. So nope, i don’t own pve now and the wins based progression hurts my CP income, which is the basis of 5star transition. This change hurts the vets most and imho the smaller roster players are very shortsighted not to see it will hurt them in the future too. At least there’s no reason to point fingers in Schadenfreude.