Such a cocky asshole with his own customers.
Paid progression at the very least creates the perception that you're into fucking up your game with filler and grinding in exchange for an additional revenue stream.
So I'm generally apprehensive to the idea of supporting companies that feel this is how games should be made.
Why? He's not denying JC3 will feature any of the things he approved of in that olden tweet.
Also not denying it here.
How so?
I guess it makes sense when the majority of people who own your game got it for $3 during a Steam sale.
The crying and forecasts of doom in this thread are hilarious. Biggest upset of the generation this far before release? Okay.
Maybe this little gem:
I'm here to tell you, no it is not and anyone who thinks that way will get no money from me.
...
How does that make him a cocky asshole?
this bums me out. hope mad max ends up solid
Sleeping Dogs
Just Cause
See ya next time, Deus Ex.
"It is that simple" shuts down discussion and ignores reality, that's a pretty cocky and assholic thing to do.
Are they not working on Mad Max?
Valve is going F2P. Blizzard is going F2P, and their biggest moneymaker over the last decade has been subscription. EA is having (regrettably) great success with EA Access, and like every other major publisher, is looking for its own F2P hit. I'd venture to say that at least eight out of the ten most financially successful games in the last three years have been something other than the standard "$60 up front" model.
It may shut down discussion, but it isn't ignoring reality, and I don't even know if you need to have a discussion about it given the facts of how the marketplace has been trending. I'm not sure if voicing an opinion about a near-assured issue makes you a cocky asshole.
But this isn't F2P. It's bullshit F2P grinds and microtransactions in a $60 PAID game. That's the huge fuckin difference.
that game is under WB control.
Square Enix western side is going f2p and paymium(or whatever is called) heavily.
Oh, okay, I didn't realize we had a clear description of the effect of microtransactions in this game, its payment model, or even its retail price. I thought all we had were a bunch of unintentionally leaked screenshots that were causing a bunch of uninformed kneejerk reactions.
Oh, okay, I didn't realize we had a clear description of the effect of microtransactions in this game, its payment model, or even its retail price. I thought all we had were a bunch of unintentionally leaked screenshots that were causing a bunch of uninformed kneejerk reactions.
Like BigDug13 says, its for (what I presume) will be a full price title you have to first buy upfront. Doesn't matter at that point how the market is, he comes out as a cocky asshole for planning on exploiting people in that matter.Valve is going F2P. Blizzard is going F2P, and their biggest moneymaker over the last decade has been subscription. EA is having (regrettably) great success with EA Access, and like every other major publisher, is looking for its own F2P hit. I'd venture to say that at least eight out of the ten most financially successful games in the last three years have been something other than the standard "$60 up front" model.
It may shut down discussion, but it isn't ignoring reality, and I don't even know if you need to have a discussion about it given the facts of how the marketplace has been trending. I'm not sure if voicing an opinion about a near-assured issue makes you a cocky asshole.
But this isn't F2P. It's bullshit F2P grinds and microtransactions in a $60 PAID game. That's the huge fuckin difference.
And if this is the "future he envisioned" where gamers pay $60 and then also pay microtransactions on top, that makes him an asshole.
Saddledome?
...if you think someone leaked screenshots of the game's payment and currency structure unintentionally, I have a bridge to sell you.
Clearly whoever is leaking this is not happy with the direction that the game is going, and wanted to drum up support somehow.
ALL microtransactions for an in-game currency are bad in a $60 game. It doesn't matter what context the screenshots are in. Obviously you are ok with this industry direction, but I for one find it completely counter to what I want in a game to have developers giving paid options to fund yourself with in-game currency. It's bullshit after spending $60 FULL STOP.
Maybe this little gem:
I'm here to tell you, no it is not and anyone who thinks that way will get no money from me.
How so?
But it's not Avalanche who is making Mad Max?
Oh, okay, I didn't realize we had a clear description of the effect of microtransactions in this game, its payment model, or even its retail price. I thought all we had were a bunch of unintentionally leaked screenshots that were causing a bunch of uninformed kneejerk reactions.
Companies let stuff "leak" nowadays without official PR all the time. That isn't what this is, and focusing on that just ignores the thrust of what I was saying.
Like BigDug13 says, its for (what I presume) will be a full price title you have to first buy upfront. Doesn't matter at that point how the market is, he comes out as a cocky asshole for planning on exploiting people in that matter.
...
How does that make him a cocky asshole?
I don't think he's implying it was the company's intention to leak these particular screens, but perhaps a disgruntled employee acting on his own who doesn't agree with the business model the game he is working on appears to be following.
I sincerely hope this makes no money so the industry scums can see that people don't want this crap.