Jump to content
[DEV] BRAMMERTRON

Loot Crates & Weapon Case drops, what are your thoughts?

Recommended Posts

Freakshow    173
20 minutes ago, y!NMastah said:

third: i'm not really fond of grind walls and in all honesty i do not think the originally targeted audience (OLD school FPS gamers from MoH, COD era) is fond of it either. I think they will rather spend 30/40/50 bucks on a complete game with everything in it rather than seeing grind walls in the game that is absolutely nothing like any old school game as we remember it.

Speaking as a fellow old schooler, the skins for me wouldn't present a grind wall at all. The FPS game that first got me hooked (MoH:AA) had no such thing in place beyond a few soldier skins (not including 3rd party mods) and nor did several after that. Therefore my POV is that it's a small bonus to get something out of a box which I might think looks nice. There is no grind wall because I'm not grinding for skins, I'd be playing as normal in public/competitive and just happening to stumble across a few pretty skins along the way. They aren't must have or preventing me from doing anything in game. 

I may be in a minority of the old schoolers there but as it doesn't affect gameplay and isn't necessary in any way, I don't see how it would present a wall in any way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DukeNukem    189
11 minutes ago, y!NMastah said:

I skipped some of the reactions and focussed on the OP.

First off all:
What costs of keeping servers running do you mean? Aren't clans renting/hosting their own servers then? Thus being responsible for those costs? Same with TS and Vent?As far as i can see the cost for BH would be limited to a single server running the BattleRank competition, which in its turn can be supported in costs by placing adds on them and perhaps donations?

Second: why thinking about growing a single title called Battalion 1944? Why not turning the name of the game to a Franchise called Battalion and name the first edition: <something> 1944 and second and more editions with new names under de same series/franchise? Like GTA was a game on itself but later on GTA became GTA franchise with Vice City, Liberty City, SA as subtitles..

third: i'm not really fond of grind walls and in all honesty i do not think the originally targeted audience (OLD school FPS gamers from MoH, COD era) is fond of it either. I think they will rather spend 30/40/50 bucks on a complete game with everything in it rather than seeing grind walls in the game that is absolutely nothing like any old school game as we remember it.

Please, keep it real! consider using Battalion as a franchise / series brand and come up with a subtitle. Next title could focus more on pacific theater, North Africa or Russian campaign (something like: Battalion: Scorched Earth (stolen from Panzer General). 

 

GL

I am going to have to agree with @y!NMastah only because this is time and chance for a quality shooter to come out. Something that brings back the old strategy based COD and MOH games. I would LOVE to play and would purchase another game that is made from you guys, as a franchise, if the next game was like an expansion to the original game. Maybe those other games can just be DLCs, at a lesser price than a full release, with the other nations that supplement the original game. Id buy them 100% if this game turns out to be what we all hyped for.

Though I did think that this game wouldn't need micro-purchases to sustain itself considering it is 3rd party server based. I understand the cost of running a server is a lot but your projections of only 100,000 copies is on the low end i believe. It seems that what you guys will create is the revive of the old COD WW2 shooters which will draw the older players out and attract new ones. Id say add an extra 0 to that number for a full release because of steam and then the exposure you will get from youtubers like DevilDogGamer would give you that extra publicity.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pte Walker    25

Glad we're discussing this now lets get the long term finance model in place to match the game model.

Aye I would pay towards an on going game if it can keep hackers/cheats out and keep the servers running. I'd pay for add ons/expansions like Stalingrad or desert/jungle additions.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yiNMastah    104

+1 for DukeNukem and Pte Walker.

DLC's or expansions / follow ups for the game Battalion is the way to go. As DLC's you guys can use the exact same topics as used during the KS funding campaign where we just made enough to get the Training Ground and Beach landing maps. The DLC's should focus on everything that is still on the list (Soviets f.e.) and left out for now.
New Battalion titles could see the day of light after the first game in the franchise (which could be named as Battalion: 1944 instead of Battalion1944 (notice leaving out the ": " ?)

By the way, ever thought about involving a third party for hosting the BattleRank competition thing? Like Clanbase did? It was a product of the GGL which serviced a lot of other games as well and get revenue from the publishers to host their games besides sponsors and donations. Also a lot of volunteers were available to do the website moderation, cup hostings, cheat department / jury thing etc etc. Make this a game for and run by a solid community like in the good old days instead of these cold and remote websites/servers running the games and forums nowadays.

If players with passion and dedication are (partly) responsible for the well being of that same game and competition they are so fond of, you automatically have a built in quality assurance department running on its own. THAT to me is old school gaming.

So please easy with these in game items that can be either bought with real money or gained by massive grind. After all, how you guys think COD series grew? Because they sold a massive amount of stand alone copies of one of the most brilliant WW2 themed FPS games till date.

So much that they were able to do it over again on a whole new engine, and again pushing out one of the all time classic FPS games COD:MW. 

I surely think that going for a stand alone copy without purchasable items is a much safer decision than taking the gamble and add these grindable items to it, like some Korean MMO. Will bet my life for it that you guys will sell more than enough copies to make a nice profit out of Battalion:1944 and get so much media attention and interest by sponsors/investors to make a good successor. 

 

GL

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DukeNukem    189

+1 for y!NMastah

 

@y!NMastah That applies only if this game is beyond perfect in every way. This is a very high standard we are asking for from a non AAA title. Mind you I would LOVE to see this game flourish. I am promoting it in my own way by talking about it with a bunch of my gaming friends who may not be into shooters and if this game is anything like the old COD games and MW1 & 2 they will deff get into it. If you want competitions, i remember Socom1-3 where i would play on PS2 along with being registered on GameBattles and 3rd party members would act as admins to see if people are cheating or monitor a tournament. There was a whole community of gamers who would take it really seriously and i am SURE that another thing you can make money off of is if you offer some services like that. Hire players to run, monitor, and admin the competitive side of Battalion. Hell, I'd be happy to do that on my free time after work! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeker    4

Sounds good, as long as we have the ability to get currency in case we get duplicates IF there will be duplicate system and buy new skins with what we get also, we should have the ability to buy skins with our money but the cost may be more or less than a crate depending on the skin quality.

And I guess we will be able to suggest the skins in the Design section of the forums so I shall be thinking of what I can dig up.

Edited by Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WeAsOne    220

Ah i readed it right now.. if i can play the full game with 1 purchase its fine not te get extra optical upgrades

Edited by WeAsOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farq-S    371

for me, this day was always going to come. bulkhead have to deal with the economic realities of developing a game. i've said this before. and, without wanting to insult anyone's opinion in any way, decrying micro-transactions on principle is clinging onto times past. i should know, i fundamentally disagree with micro-transactions but, if done correctly (overwatch) they enrich the game. if done wrong (COD) they break the game.

purely cosmetic gear and weapon variants is acceptable in my opinion but here's the thing. i'll use bullet points for clarity and not to be dictatorial;

- micro-transactions should be in small, cheap packages

- every item should always be earnable through gameplay as well

- every item should be directly purchaseable (no rng in micro-transactions)

- identify the most desirable items and make them only earnable through gameplay

- have a huge volume of items. when you think you have enough, double it again

- be absolutely transparent about how to earn items through gameplay

ultimately, we have to trust the Devs that they'll take on-board the feedback and come up with a workable solution. i trust that they will. as usual, thanks for asking our opinion.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as I can grind it out to fill my OCD, I'm good with the idea of getting them free once in a while.  Of course, they must not be game changers as everyone before me has said.

This isn't 'pay to win', it's 'pay to pretty' :ph34r:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yiNMastah    104

Interesting feedback given here, even though we might differ in our opinions it still invites you to step outside your own bubble of thoughts and see things from a different perspective.

However, i'm still feeling uncomfortable when thinking about this gaming getting payable unlocks (Micro transactions) no matter the price or effect (read: no effect) it has on the actual game play. More over i really do not think this is an 'economic reality' but a mindset that has been created AND been driven by the gaming industry themselves. Not by the players. They just eat whatever they get served. We became zombie gamers that can't do else no more than just ramming their controllers or keyboards to unleash just another kill streak combo. Why? Because the devs force them to do so. And guess what, they got fed up with it seeing the huge support this game and its devs got on KS.

The gaming industry, especially concerning FPS games, lacks a heart and soul nowadays. Instead of determining what their targeted audience is and focusing game development around that particular group of potential customers (Battalion:1944 -> older players that played classical shooters), they all want to take over the world and think BIG right from the start. Mostly asking themselves what pay mechanics they can build in a game to attract basically any 'scrub' out there.

Do not get me wrong here, as someone with a technical marketing background i realize as no other how important a healthy business case is but WHO says this game won't sell for 30/40/50 bucks? Ever did a poll on KS or any major gaming website? Take GTA again for an example. Or any game on the console market that easily sells for 50+ euros beside any downloadable content. People ARE willing to spent a considerable amount of money on a game as long as it gives them enough play time and content.
Why not thinking about making a demo of the game instead? And showing them what they can expect from the full game?

Imho micro transactions simply leave a bad taste and throws up this image of yet another Korean grind game (even though it does not effect basic game play). Also by putting this game for 30+ euros on the shelf, you automatically fend off the scrubs on the internet nowadays.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through a lot of this I'm a bit frustrated. 

Some of the people who disagree with having loot crates even in the game let alone paying for them are some of the same people who are saying 'No' to DLC because it splits the community. Some of the same people who complain about the price point of the game.

It's important to remember that with this model of game, it would be easier for us to consider free DLC. Instead of DLC it would just be an update for the game where we add say, The British or The Russians.

We would also consider lowering the initial price of the game, the reason this is important for everyone here is because multiplayer games live and die based on the amount of active players every evening. The lower the barrier to entry the easier it is to find a good match against someone. 

We've seen a few comments here along the lines of pay to win or I don't think it needs it. Remember; you can play the game exactly as it is, you do not have to engage in the loot crate aspect of it. But, we see the benefits of lowering the barrier to entry and helping with long term costs being very very effective. 

Joe

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farq-S    371

NMastah,

i'm going to disagree here with some of the points you make.

micro-transactions won't 'leave a bad taste' if done correctly. correctly being cosmetic items that don't affect gameplay and can be earned by playing the game as well as purchasing them.

you say you feel uncomfortable with micro-transactions no matter the price or that they don't affect gameplay. i therefore don't see where your objection to cosmetic micro-transactions is. if you don't want to pay for them you can grind for them and if you don't want to grind for them, you can pay for them. the player can choose to do both or neither. how else would such items go to the player if they're not unlocked by grinding? or are you questioning the extent of the grinding?

i also don't think its for any of us to conclude how much players are willing to pay for the game or dlc. we all have different budgets and sure the older players have greater means to pay 30 or 40 euros but we all have bills to pay too. and selling the game or dlc for a higher price won't stop the people you call scrubs from buying the game. this is 2016 more people have more disposable income than they did 10-15 years ago. look at how much these so-called scrubs throw at COD supply drops or CS:GO weapon skins.

to ignore the market potential for micro-transactions would not only be naive it would be a failing on the part of bulkhead from a business perspective.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Farq-S said:

NMastah,

i'm going to disagree here with some of the points you make.

micro-transactions won't 'leave a bad taste' if done correctly. correctly being cosmetic items that don't affect gameplay and can be earned by playing the game as well as purchasing them.

you say you feel uncomfortable with micro-transactions no matter the price or that they don't affect gameplay. i therefore don't see where your objection to cosmetic micro-transactions is. if you don't want to pay for them you can grind for them and if you don't want to grind for them, you can pay for them. the player can choose to do both or neither. how else would such items go to the player if they're not unlocked by grinding? or are you questioning the extent of the grinding?

i also don't think its for any of us to conclude how much players are willing to pay for the game or dlc. we all have different budgets and sure the older players have greater means to pay 30 or 40 euros but we all have bills to pay too. and selling the game or dlc for a higher price won't stop the people you call scrubs from buying the game. this is 2016 more people have more disposable income than they did 10-15 years ago. look at how much these so-called scrubs throw at COD supply drops or CS:GO weapon skins.

to ignore the market potential for micro-transactions would not only be naive it would be a failing on the part of bulkhead from a business perspective.

That was an impressively on point observation.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razor    370
59 minutes ago, Farq-S said:

NMastah,

i'm going to disagree here with some of the points you make.

micro-transactions won't 'leave a bad taste' if done correctly. correctly being cosmetic items that don't affect gameplay and can be earned by playing the game as well as purchasing them.

you say you feel uncomfortable with micro-transactions no matter the price or that they don't affect gameplay. i therefore don't see where your objection to cosmetic micro-transactions is. if you don't want to pay for them you can grind for them and if you don't want to grind for them, you can pay for them. the player can choose to do both or neither. how else would such items go to the player if they're not unlocked by grinding? or are you questioning the extent of the grinding?

i also don't think its for any of us to conclude how much players are willing to pay for the game or dlc. we all have different budgets and sure the older players have greater means to pay 30 or 40 euros but we all have bills to pay too. and selling the game or dlc for a higher price won't stop the people you call scrubs from buying the game. this is 2016 more people have more disposable income than they did 10-15 years ago. look at how much these so-called scrubs throw at COD supply drops or CS:GO weapon skins.

to ignore the market potential for micro-transactions would not only be naive it would be a failing on the part of bulkhead from a business perspective.

You are spot on here Farq-S, I don't mind this idea at all if it's up to me to buy it or grind for it. As long as it does not affect gameplay I most likely will ignore it all togheter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freakshow    173

I think a part of the problem is that some people see the words "optional" and "cosmetic" and somewhere along the line their brain translates that to "must have" or "pay to win".

I can't blame people for having alarm bells ringing when they hear of microtransactions because there is so much crap out there, made by some shamblolically shameless companies that make microtransactions mandatory in order to compete and will milk their playerbase to within an inch of it's life. It creates an association with the word that brings about a sense of dread. I've played a lot of crap over the years and as long as there are enough people out there who are willing to fork out £150+ on a pay to win model, then people will keep making games based around it. 

However, for me it's pretty plain to see that in this case this is a system that would aid the longevity of the game, maybe even help produce the occasional free piece of content without giving away any power to the people who choose to buy the completely optional items. 

There is also some mention of simply having a donate button. If you want to occasionally donate extra money to BH for them to put towards Battalion...then why not just buy a few crates? It is the same thing through a different interface and you will get a couple of skins or whatever on top. I'm not sure of the difference? Either way, BH would get your donation.

Good to see a healthy discussion on here, regardless of which side of it you're on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yiNMastah    104

Well, to put things straight i want to make clear that i personally am not per definition against extra content that is to be paid for.  I support DLC as long as it won't affect MP mode (some maps not becoming available to those who do not own the DLC's f.e.). I also support expansions packs that brings new SP campaigns and gear to use. Again, as long as it won't affect MP mode. So don't get me wrong there.

All i'm saying is that it depends on how they bring it. And if i am correct the loot crates are meant to be used in MP mode.
I'm just wondering if injecting the game with a loot crate every now and then really is the way to go for a "classical shooter" instead of gaining profit from more content as the likes of expansion packs?

1 hour ago, Farq-S said:

i also don't think its for any of us to conclude how much players are willing to pay for the game or dlc. we all have different budgets and sure the older players have greater means to pay 30 or 40 euros but we all have bills to pay too. and selling the game or dlc for a higher price won't stop the people you call scrubs from buying the game. this is 2016 more people have more disposable income than they did 10-15 years ago. look at how much these so-called scrubs throw at COD supply drops or CS:GO weapon skins.

Don't know what to think of this. As i read it there is a contradiction in here: "but we all have to pay bills too" (suggestion a reason to ease down with spending money on games or any luxury thing) and "this is 2016 more people have more disposable income than they did 10-15 years ago" suggesting they have more room in budget to spend? 

Anyways, in the end it's up to BH what to decide (and i am very grateful they asked for our opinions about it on forehand) and if their plan works out best for them and their game who am i (or anyone in here) to say they should not? Whatever it will be i sincerely hope it will work out.

That being said i still have a few unanswered questions:
1: Turning Battalion into the name of a franchise instead of a sole game titel?
2: clans hosting their own servers will take away a huge chunk of the mentioned hosting costs no?
3: GGL type of MP platform interesting, with the help of volunteers interesting?
4: Demo a good thing to attract more customers?

I can make different threads about this if preferred though to prevent derailing a bit?

GL

Edited by y!NMastah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farq-S    371
6 minutes ago, y!NMastah said:

Don't know what to think of this. As i read it there is a contradiction in here: "but we all have to pay bills too" (suggestion a reason to ease down with spending money on games or any luxury thing) and "this is 2016 more people have more disposable income than they did 10-15 years ago" suggesting they have more room in budget to spend? 

 

yes there is a contradiction in there but that's intentional because those scenarios apply to all the different people who will hopefully play this game. generalising gamers as a generic herd of scrubs or MLG tryhards is too simplistic and not realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yiNMastah    104
6 minutes ago, Farq-S said:

yes there is a contradiction in there but that's intentional because those scenarios apply to all the different people who will hopefully play this game. generalising gamers as a generic herd of scrubs or MLG tryhards is too simplistic and not realistic.

I wasn't 'generalizing' gamers; i was specifically pointing towards people among us on this planet with toxic (gaming) mentality that, once connected to the WWW, led to the downfall of the once beautiful online gaming community. Not sure if you were active during and with the MP community in the classical shooters but in time when the game ended up in a 5 dollar basket at Toy's r Us, cheaters, flamers, and mostly trolls babbling in understandable languages ,not respecting the (non official) back then accepted standard of speaking English online, popped up from everywhere and leaving a trail of trash behind killing the communities pretty fast. Massive increase in cheating reports, abusive behavior etc etc.

Perhaps that is my greatest fear here; after having waited so long for a game as Battalion1944 it getting infected by these "scrubs" because it will get to easily accessible by dropping the base price and introducing micro transactions to compensate for it.

@Razor: this is where we get to the point of donation v.s. pay for content. I rather pay full price and donate for the hard work they are doing / hosting a competition rather than pay a lower (read: more easily accessible price) for the base game with the risk it attracts those mentioned "scrubs".

But again, we all have our own opinions about it. I just hope i express mine understandable enough (which didn't really seem like it?) but bare in mind that English is not my native language ;) 

In the end, i think i'm to emotionally involved in this game already that i see bears on the road already and perhaps worrying for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farq-S    371

NMastah,

i'm english and your english is probably better than mine and i am always aware that its not your first language when reading your comments. all i'm really saying is its not really fair to pin the mistakes of the entire gaming industry on bulkhead or this game. we have to always reward the devs for displaying their commitment to making this game in the right way as well as being as open as they possibly can be in these forums. i can tell from your comments you feel the same. we also have to accept that making games is far more expensive than we as gamers and KS backers will ever appreciate and the reasons for micro-transactions is not always as sinister as the likes of ea and activision make it. if done right, it will make this game even better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freakshow    173
47 minutes ago, y!NMastah said:

2: clans hosting their own servers will take away a huge chunk of the mentioned hosting costs no?

Just to make a point regarding this. I believe it's pretty standard practice for a company to provide a set number of official servers (edit - on PC, not always the case for console as they may use peer 2 peer connections) for the release of a game. Yes people will hire their own but for example, imagine the following (exaggerated) scenario:

- 100k people buy the game ready to play at launch (number purely for example). Everyone is excited to get into the game.
- Only 2k people stump up the cash to rent/buy servers with a capacity of let's say 16 each. Bulkhead set up literally zero.
- This creates 32k server slots.
- 68k people can't get into a server.
- A hugely detrimental first impression is created - people think the game is a shoddy mess on release. The damage is done at this point.
- Word of mouth and reviews slam the game for a crap launch.
- Sales and concurrent player numbers will struggle to ever catch up following a bad launch, likely severely shortening the lifespan of the game.

Everything that these guys talk about from a financial perspective is far more transparent than you see with most companies, which is why questions come about because people simply don't realise this cost or that cost is associated with releasing a game.

 

 

Edited by Freakshow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yiNMastah    104

I'm fully aware of the potential costs involved in making and running a game (at least i can totally understand even though none of us has the exact numbers). But that is not my point and has never been mate. (in fact, i have just read a financial year report of a different game developer)

The/ my point was where to get the revenue from. ;) 

Either micro transactions (thus able to lower the base price of the game) or bigger chunks of additional content and a higher base price. 

But seeing the success of CS:S i think there is no need for any discussion after all and micro transactions in the form of skins/uniforms etc is the way to go and i have to starting accepting that fact.

Edited by y!NMastah
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Djred84    17

Personally I have no issue with loot crates at all, it makes perfect sense and will help massively keeping Bat44 alive for years to come. Were not exactly talking huge amounts of money here and you don’t have to do it. Win/Win. Always surprised when so called gamers scrimp on money....gaming isn’t cheap lads.

DLC should also not be free. Why should it be? DLC helps put fresh legs onto a game months/years after release and people work hard to produce it so why should it be free? The money made gets put back into the game and goes towards future dlc and future titles. Another no brainer. If people genuinely cared and wanted to support a game they would buy the dlc. Sorry but you are just being cheap otherwise.

The only issue I would have with loot crates (which has been well covered) was if it unlocked stuff not available by grinding it out which from what I see wont be the case. Again micro transactions for anything from weapons,badges,skins etc would be fine as long as the above rule was kept. There is some serious revenue to be made from this just take a look at cs go. Crazy money. And again its all optional.

What about a real life wager match (see black ops) where teams put real money in and the winner takes a chunk and a little goes back to the devs. Or is that illegal or something hahaha.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DukeNukem    189

Reading some of these comments i see the pluses of micro-transactions and the possibility of free DLC but there has to be A LOT of content for those micro-transactions. If you want to add different unique things, start thinking down to the mechanics to the rifle. Its not going to be cosmetic anymore, you can only go so far with cosmetic. Chrome paint, bent bolt instead of straight bolt, different style iron sights, front sight cover on or off (k98k), rough wood, battle scared wood, and what not for weapons. It will reach a limit where it will either be too crazy or to the point where everything is unlocked. What happens after? I rather have a HUGE DLC with loads of content and ill pay for it because i support the game, though i personally would rather earn the unlocks than be able to buy them for the micro transactions. 

 

Hear me out before you really shoot down the idea of some game play being affected. Why not go into how the rifle is situated? Modifying the rifle with things like spring tension where a heavier spring will make it hard to reload a bolt action, too loose of a spring on an automatic would cause the rifle tot have too much recoil, and down to how the bent bolt will allow you to keep sight picture instead of the straight bolt that will not allow you to keep sight picture.
Another could be the benefit that the Enfield  had over the Springfield, Mauser, and Mosin where you can keep your face resting on the stock of the rifle while reloading because the action of the bolt was short even though it fired a .303 round. What about the fact the Enfield and Mauser had a much smoother cycle rates than the Mosin and Springfield? What about different 

I don't know but i feel cosmetics will be only so much. After a while there may need to be some game play alterations. Another would be the pineapple grenade vs the stick grenade. One can be thrown further than the other, will that be already implemented in the game? That directly gives the Germans an upper hand.

The Thompson was known for jamming, maybe there is an unlock that will "fix" or cut down the "jamming".

 

I am talkin out of historical facts and I KNOW this is an arcade style game, but its just food for thought

Edited by DukeNukem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Djred84 said:

DLC should also not be free. Why should it be? DLC helps put fresh legs onto a game months/years after release and people work hard to produce it so why should it be free? The money made gets put back into the game and goes towards future dlc and future titles. Another no brainer. If people genuinely cared and wanted to support a game they would buy the dlc. Sorry but you are just being cheap otherwise.

 

For me DLC to buy are the death of community. Not all can buy all DLC, and so they would be excluded. Make one-two-... DLC and you will have a fragmented community.

Especially after some times with new games, you risk to have players that avoid to take a DLC to try an other game. but if the game still playble...

 

Imho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Djred84    17
11 hours ago, [NGBC]CH_SwissWolf said:

For me DLC to buy are the death of community. Not all can buy all DLC, and so they would be excluded. Make one-two-... DLC and you will have a fragmented community.

Especially after some times with new games, you risk to have players that avoid to take a DLC to try an other game. but if the game still playble...

 

Imho

I get that I really do but for me it makes more sense to charge for dlc than to give it away for free. How can people not afford dlc??? Are you guys kidding me? If you really wanted to support the game then this would go a long way. The devs should be rewarded and supported at every point through out this process. Dlc costs like what? 10 bucks max and people cant afford that? Bit of a joke. IMHO

Too many people want a great game but aren’t willing to give the devs the backing they need. Makes about as much sense as american politics.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×