Why not just release it for everything?
KLXVER said: Why not just release it for everything? |
Because the Xbox fans won't buy a game like this.
The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?
Spindel said:
Meh, I got 95 h of gaming time out of Octopath Traveler. $60 for that amount of game time is fair. |
I got 100 hours out of Stardew Valley. So by that logic it should have cost $60 too.
I wonder if it will run proper at 1080p on PC? When I play on Switch I almost always play in handheld mode because the game seems to run at 720p. If I play on my TV the text starts to get blurry.
Conina said:
Download size less than 2 GB, install size less than 3 GB... not really a game where "physical is a must buy." |
While size is a factor, I try to avoid buying digital on eShop if I can. Digital marketplaces on consoles need more staying power than they do.
KLXVER said: Why not just release it for everything? |
Because Nintendo assisted in its publishing. Maybe a few years later down the road.
BasilZero said:
Whats wrong with that? There's good smartphone games. |
Well for starters it's not a platform I'm interested in gaming on or buying at all. I just have a cheap $30 smartphone, so it would probably run terribly on my phone. I don't want to pay a ton of money for a "plan", so that I can pay off some $600 device in installments, and I definitely don't want a data package. 90% of Smartphones are these fragile little devices with glass screens that shatter if you drop them. Then there's the planned obsolescence built into them. They are made to break, just in time for you to buy a new phone and sign up for a new plan in a couple years. I'd rather not spend $600 or even $200 on that.
Then there's the fact that most Smartphone games have ads, or micro-transactions or some other annoying way to get you to pay for something that is "free". Whatever it is they implement to get money out of it, makes the game less fun as a whole.
Touch controls are junk on their own. They are slower to use than a standard controller, and using your finger partially covers the screen you are trying to look at. Dedicated buttons are a must.
Edit: I have played many DS/3DS games that implemented touch controls. A couple of them like Canvas Curse, and Phantom Hourglass were almost entirely touch controls. But that's Nintendo, and they are just better at making games than everyone else.
Smartphone games are often simplified to the point of just being bad games. Especially games based on successful video game franchises. Just look at All the Bravest, Super Mario Run, and Poke'Mon Go.
Anyway, I hope this helps you understand why I don't want Octopath: All the Bravest/Go Edition.
BasilZero said:
I see, that is quite a shame that you wont experience the glory that is Final Fantasy Record Keeper! (Been playing it since 2014 lol). |
I will never play a game with randomized mechanics that you have to pay real money for. I spent over a decade playing CCGs. Buying packs just to find rare cards to win with. Dropping hundreds on booster sets. Then I discovered how many board games and strategy games come complete in a box for $50. Collectible card games like Magic and Yu Gi Oh are overpriced and poorly designed compared to the likes of Betrayal, Catan, or Terraforming Mars. The same is true for traditional games vs games with Gacha or MTS mechanics.
BasilZero said:
I havent spent a single penny on the game and going strong still. |
I've heard that argument before. "MTG isn't expensive! You can build a good deck out of commons and uncommons!"
BasilZero said:
Its not a argument, its a fact - its easy to play the system to the point where you dont even need to pay a single penny. Like for an example, this draw I just made just a min ago - costed me only 25 mythrils - you get one mythril for each battle, each day you can get 3-5 mythrils for free just by logging in, and doing special events such as anniversary events, you can get 25-50 per run. |
How long does a run take?