Really, theyve shown and explained in detail what it is you can buy, what you cant do without buying, and every other "pay" area of the title? last i checked everyone was making a snap judgement off of finding out the game is "free to play".

You can make a judgement on how it looks, or to some extent "plays" (watching someone play isnt the same as playing yourself), but to make uninformed assumptions about the fate of the game for an element that has not been covered, at all, is just silly.

So tell me again how these extensive demos of graphics and gameplay has given you a credible amount of information to toss opinions on an area of the game they hasnt said a word about, because apparently youre from the future.

Well, let's see... beautiful graphics but samey environments, repetitive looking combat with a few cool tricks, bad enemy AI, randomly generated maps, online only, free to play, and Capcom. That's quite enough to have some opinions about how the game is shaping up.

Free to play has a bad rap with a lot of people for good reason, and incidentally, so does Capcom. They are the kings of ripping content out of $60 games to sell it to you separately, so suspicion about the business model infecting their game design in a f2p title is warranted. It's possible that it won't, but for them to deliver a genuinely compelling free game that isn't a nickel and dime fest would be going against type at this point. You don't have to be from the future to see that, only aware of their trajectory as a company these past few years.

An educated assumption is still an assumption.

The key word here being "educated". Games as a service, be they subscription or microtransaction based, that depend on keeping players playing in order to generate revenue are old hat. Most people know how they feel about them by now. If someone has a preference for the traditional games as a product model where the consumer plops down a set amount of money for a complete and hopefully satisfying experience, then naturally he will have less interest in a game like Deep Down than in something like Dark Souls II. Making such assumptions is unavoidable when one has limited time, energy, and money to devote to games.

As for Capcom's willingness and ability to deliver microtransactions in a fashion that won't make players feel like they're being fleeced, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

Shut up.

User was banned for this post - Kantor

better have some nice outfits to buy

Errrm... I've seen some of these free to play games before. They charge extortionate amounts for you to go deeper into the game.

I'm not sure about this. I'm not sure this business model works. Its a shame because I did really like the look of Deep Down.

We'll see, it could still be good, we don't know.

Atleast we have the opportunity to try it out once it releases. Personally I'm still hopeful - many of the posters here probably don't want to be hyped for this because there is a chance to end up with disappointment, but I'll give it a fair chance :).

Exactly. I was totally surprised on how many people were so looking forward to it while we saw almost nothing from it, gameplay only a few days ago. I was skeptical from the beginning but I can still be surprised if it turns out to be good.

Tribes: Ascend was pretty great, but it was also saturated with microtransactions.