| danasider said:
From the sounds of it, you likely wouldn't get this game if it were $20, $40 or $60, because you have a specific taste so why all the hate on a pricing scheme that likely won't affect those types of games? Breaking up the model into smaller packages for people who don't want to shell out $60 for a full game makes sense for a fighter, because a lot of people only play with one or two characters. Whether the amount of content you get at $5, $20 or $40 is propotionate, a lot more people will be willing to give a game a try for the two lower price points versus the higher one isf they're on the fence about it. Not trying to be in your face, but that's all people are saying. You seem to be angry at the idea of a new pricing model when your posts indicate you likely wouldn't buy this game anyway. And if this plan did affect games on your system of choice, it'd likely be for small scale games like fighters (or eventually racers and other competitive multiplayer modes) so I just can't see where's the bad in that. Even Killzone has it's multiplayer free up tilll a cutoff level and charges after the fact. Why? Because not a huge amount of people bought the game and multiplayer games thrive on large online communities. So if a game offers a tier model that you may not buy into, you still might benefit from others having the opportunity to pay a stripped down version, because it means you'll have more people to play against/with online. How's that bad? |
I didnt read any of your post after specific taste because i know its completely irrelevant. How do i know that? Well one game i bought in between was marvel vs capcom at 12 dollars new. Another game was mortal kombat trilogy on psn. So what about specific tastes?
