Yes you cant use the AE characters. But he can still use the other "Super" characters that you have. I mean it seems pretty fair , didnt most DLC work this way back then? If you bought a map in an FPS. A person who doesnt own that Map cant play with you , but you can still play the other maps you both own.
I think we have an expert on fighting videogames culture, guys.
Compared to how overpriced are SFV DLC now everything SF4 did seems reasonable, but i still think dropping SF4 vanilla support and all the people who bought and releasing and new version so fast has done more damage to franchise from the casual fans point than anything else. Heck most of the comments on SF FB page are like i will wait for super or Ultra Edition of SFV.
Okay, I'll bite. What makes current MK XL worse than current SFV? Only thing I can think of is that everyone is a footsie-less 50/50 reliant character in MK, while SFV S02 has 3 of them. Unfortunately those 3 are among the best chars in the game.Nah, Revelator is pretty much the only game in that list that's maybe better than SFV. And even that's still A) pretty animu and B) a full price iteration of Sign.
Friends, family, distant relatives.Not sure where you're getting this "universally panned" balance of season 2 from when the CPT season still hasn't started yet. S1 in the beginning of its first year turned out to be very different at the end of it in terms of character usage and tiers, and it will happen the same with S2. Let's stop grasping at straws.
We don't even know if the patch is real. Their blogpost was like 'Hmm maybe we will have a patch. Maybe we wont. We are looking at your gripes but no promises gais'Also Season 2 might be bad , but it might become a non issue with the upcoming patch before CPT. SFV S1 balance was already pretty damn good for a first iteration.
Nah. KI has had sick netcode since launch. It seems to be very polished too. The anime games on that list have a lot of polish as well. Thing is, when you make arbitrary categories like 'This game is weab bait', 'this one is just trash', you will never find the unicorn you're looking for. Let me guess, MKXL is 'trash', GGXrd is 'Weab bait' and SFV is 'Shitty business practice'. So you've now handwaived away 3 games, even though only one of them legitimately deserved it (SFV)All I see is trash, weab bait, shitty business models, or all of the above. The truth is no existing fighting game has the multiplayer support/polish you would expect of a competitive title today in any genre. None of the games you listed get as much criticism because no one actually gives a fuck about them to that degree.
Sad to see that the sales have slowed down so much. Sure, the game launched unfinished, and it still has some things that need to be ironed out, or that I'd like to see added, but mechanically it's the most fun I've ever had with a fighting game. The story mode is also a really nice addition to a total casual like myself, although I can't deny that I'd still like to see an arcade mode to be added into the game.
is there a worthwhile single player yet?
It's a launch title?
I don't think there's a date yet.
By that logic, fighting games should never do DLC.
Most of those SF characters were recycled from SFIV. Notice how most fighting games with new engines compared to previous entries (thus starting from zero) generally have smaller rosters at the start. Sure, they could have reused SFIV assets for SFV to bolster the roster, but said assets didn't exactly age well.No, fighting games can have dlc but not like sfv. Do it like smash. Smash launched with a ton of characters and stages and content. So when the announced dlc characters i bought them all because i didnt feel robbed. Nintendo gave me a game that was worth the 60$ asking price so when they wanted to sell me dlc characters for 5 or 6 i payed.
I hated what happen to street fighter x tekken because that game had sooo many characters and stages.
They need to do a complete relaunch with a "Super Street Fighter V". I know they said they wouldn't, but they need to.
Also, is Sagat in the game yet? I was watching a tournament a while back and not seeing Bonchan on Sagat was bullshit.
What Capcom said was that they wouldn't split the player-base with Super/AE/Ultra releases with balance updates locked behind a paywall, partially due to their Capcom Pro Tour push. They could do re-releases with all of the DLC up to that point (basically a physical version of their Deluxe Edition), but don't expect anything on the level of what SSFIV was to SFIV (I.E. a new game that builds on top of SFIV, one you couldn't upgrade to via Vanilla SFIV).They need to do a complete relaunch with a "Super Street Fighter V". I know they said they wouldn't, but they need to.
Also, is Sagat in the game yet? I was watching a tournament a while back and not seeing Bonchan on Sagat was bullshit.
The double standards for fighting games are hilarious.
It's all based on titles that released 10-15 years ago with tons of reused sprites that took a fraction of the work to create that modern 3d models do.
So what if alpha 3 had X many characters when 75% were reused assets from previous alpha games?
If sf5 directly and without modification reused 3d models from sf4 then there would be even more outrage.
I don't envy fighting game developers. It's impossible to make people happy when everyone has their own impossible standards about what they expect and most of the people complaining wouldn't pay any money for the game no matter what you did anyway.
Most of those SF characters were recycled from SFIV. Notice how most fighting games with new engines compared to previous entries (thus starting from zero) generally have smaller rosters at the start. Sure, they could have reused SFIV assets for SFV to bolster the roster, but said assets didn't exactly age well.
Most of those updates were lighting-based (but to be fair, it did help the visuals to a considerable degree). Either way, you can't really start from zero & do a large roster without there being some trade. In KoFXIV's case, it was less-than-stellar visuals.I don't buy this small roster defence. King of Fighters 14 launched with 50 characters, built from the ground up, and it was their first time doing 3D models in HD. I'll admit it wasn't the prettiest game at launch but they have improved the visuals in updates. It's definitely possible to launch with a decent size roster without reusing assets.
UMvC3 is one of my favorite games of all time. The Marvel vs Capcom series made me who I am. I don't want MvCI to be bad. But when I say I want it to fail, there's a hint of masochism in there, as I see Capcom repeat the same mistakes they did for SFV.
I totally understand there will probably have to be some tradeoffs. I just find it interesting that SNK could do it on what had to be a very small budget.Most of those updates were lighting-based (but to be fair, it did help the visuals to a considerable degree). Either way, you can't really start from zero & do a large roster without there being some trade. In KoFXIV's case, it was less-than-stellar visuals.Don't get me wrong, KoFXIV is a solid game.
Go look at the likes of Guilty Gear & even the arcade release of SFIV and you'll see my point.
I haven't followed MvCI's news since the reveal trailer, are they really doing the same thing as with SFV? Is Mike Ross handling it or something?
........................I strongly disagree that Street Fighter V is the worst major fighting game of this release because, try as I might, I can't find the gameplay of MKXL, BBCF, KI, or KOF14 fun (and to clarify, I feel Revelator is more fun than SFV). So if all the stuff around the fun is better in other games it just makes it easier for me to not have fun. But since this argument is pointless since it's extremely subjective so I won't bother to argue why it's more fun.
However, I feel like people automatically assume all these other fighting games they don't play have better netcode and those who do play don't volunteer that information. Here's my netcode tier list for current gen fighting games (meaning they're on a current gen system):
S: Skullgirls, Killer Instinct
A: Street Fighter V, Mortal Kombat XL
B: GGXrd Rev, BBCF
C: KOF XIV, USF4
D: UMvC3
........................
But USF2 isn't a launch day game.
Depends on what you want. The "Cinematic Story Mode" is a play-it-once affair that is mindlessly easy and absurd.
I would prefer something to what MKX offers with their Towers.
Really if SF added living towers like MK I wouldn't need anything else. I played the hell out of those on MK, and I generally prefer SFs universe much more. Story mode doesn't really excite me in either game.
This is the saddest part , Deep down there is an amazing fighter ( probably among the best of all time ). But its covered with so much turd that its hard to enjoy it.
I've said multiple times that Capcom is typically a company whose developers make amazing games, and whose business division then meddles with it and makes the experience worse.
"Let's charge them for the ENDING!" says the man in the suit for Asura's Wrath. "Let's charge them an arm and a leg for character colors in our re-release of a 10 year old game!" says another one as they re-release Marvel vs. Capcom 2. "Let's lock 1/3rd of our roster on the disc and then act surprised when players find out it's not actually DLC!" says Street Fighter vs. Tekken's business guru. "Hey, let's charge a premium for those cheat codes that always used to be FREE!" says someone on Dead Rising's staff. "I have an idea; let's charge them for basic DIFFICULTY MODES!" says a business intern between shots of cocaine on the latest Mega Man game.
Capcom games for a whole generation have often been good, even great, in SPITE of these infuriating decisions. Street Fighter V is no different. Clearly so much talent and passion there, but it's hobbled by executive meddling and business demands that constrain what they're able to accomplish or focus on. It's possible to find this balance (by and large), but to really be successful at milking a fanbase, you have to satisfy them with the base content first, then tease them with what comes next. If the base experience is lacking, then the initial impression will be sour and people will instead see your game for what it lacks rather than what it excels at.
"Let's charge them for the ENDING!" says the man in the suit for Asura's Wrath.
Fighters are not what they used to be, minus Mortal Kombat........Mortal however sold much more than SFV, yet, SFV is the most populated and played online game, most watched, has the most entries in any tournament, has more frequent tournaments etc... etc... For all intents and purposes, this does not denote doing badly by any stretch of the imagination. I agree sales could have been even better, but for what it is, it's pretty solid I'd say.....I'd rather have 1 million people buy a game where most are playing and watching it months later as opposed to having 10 million copies sold and fewer people playing or engaed.
I would say there is 5 or 4 PS4 players for every one pc player on SFV.Capcom expected the game to sell two million by the then-current fiscal year, which ended March 31st last year, a mark which was missed by around 600k. The game hobbling to 1.5m doesn't spell an unmitigated disaster for the game overall as the launch window sales were strong, but it's not great, either. I'm sure Capcom would find solace in most of the players still being engaged with the game, but there's no evidence to suggest that is the case. In fact, the only data we have on active players is what SteamSpy tells us of the PC version specifically, which is that ~60k people have played it over the past two weeks.
The PS4 figure would have to be more than 10 times that for the total to eclipse 750k.
I strongly disagree that Street Fighter V is the worst major fighting game of this release because, try as I might, I can't find the gameplay of MKXL, BBCF, KI, or KOF14 fun (and to clarify, I feel Revelator is more fun than SFV). So if all the stuff around the fun is better in other games it just makes it easier for me to not have fun. But since this argument is pointless since it's extremely subjective so I won't bother to argue why it's more fun.
However, I feel like people automatically assume all these other fighting games they don't play have better netcode and those who do play don't volunteer that information. Here's my netcode tier list for current gen fighting games (meaning they're on a current gen system):
S: Skullgirls, Killer Instinct
A: Street Fighter V, Mortal Kombat XL
B: GGXrd Rev, BBCF
C: KOF XIV, USF4
D: UMvC3
There's probably a significant number of players like me who turn it on once a week to grind easy mission FM while waiting for updates/arcade mode.
I've been hearing this a lot, but it really feels more and more like Capcom activelly want people to play the game less... it's really weird, it's like most people have 0 reason to return to it and it is a game that tried to appeal to everyone (maybe that was the error)
No way SFV has better netcode than Rev, at least on PC. I have 0 problems playing Rev since the day I bought it. 9 months later SFV online still works like dog shit.
SFV netcode is actually good but very inconsistent,
SFV netcode is actually good but very inconsistent, im in Canada and few months ago i was playing against my friend in the middle East (Kuwait) and it was actually playable for both of us with few rollbacks, but sometimes i play against my other friend who lives 3kms away from me and we get tons of rollback.
There's probably a significant number of players like me who turn it on once a week to grind easy mission FM while waiting for updates/arcade mode.
Yup. I was really into the market for a new fighting game, after Soul Calibur 2 was my last point of entry. I have a lot of nostalgia for the original SF2, so SFV seemed a safe bet. But then the release was (too) barebones and geared towards a subset of people I don't belong to. And because these competitive players now also have a year headstart I really don't want to know what online is going to be like, seems very unfun for a casual player like me, so I'm not even going to try it.If you wanted to know how big the competitive audience is, there you have it.
It would be funny if SF2 sold more copies on the Switch than all of SF5
is there a worthwhile single player yet?
I criticize SF5's netcode because it is broken and needs fixing, but I have no idea why people pretend games like Guilty Gear are better. SF5's broken rollback might lead to 1 out of 4 online matches being unfair and that sucks, but GG with its delay-based netcode is essentially unplayable online. Unless your opponent lives in your immediate area there's not even the possibility in GG for a match which approximates the actual offline game. I admittedly haven't bothered with Sign after Revelator, but my friends and I (people I've played dozens of online fighting games with over the years) managed a single night of trying that online before we quit.
One of the reasons SF5's netcode gets so much criticism is because the foundation is actually sound. If they fix the rollback sync issues it would be in the top echelon of fighters with Killer Instinct and Skullgirls, but for whatever reason that isn't happening.
You still care about and have the game in your schedule enough to launch it once a week for missions. You care enough to do the missions and to want the currency for it.
That's way more than anyone who has actually given up the game. As in, hasnt launched it in months, traded it in etc.
You are engaging with the game once a week.