By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Dead or Alive 6 has a $93 Season Pass

Tagged games:

ThatDreamcastTho on 04 March 2019
Shiken said:
Burning Typhoon said:

That is not at all a fair comparison.  One character in dead or alive 6 has more unique animations and attacks than 2/3rds of that 72 character roster. 

Smash also has a 30 plus hour single player mode with a crap ton more interactive stages to fight in.  The comparison is completely fair and again, it puts these devs to shame.

Wrong. You obviously have not played Dead or Alive 6. The stages are the most advanced and interactive of any fighting game in history. Smash isn't even 3D.

Second of all, does smash have story cutscenes for every character in the game in addition to the main story? Give Team Ninia a break.



Around the Network
Ashadelo on 04 March 2019

And then theres Smash Ultimate



我是广州人

Neodegenerate on 05 March 2019

What this thread has taught me: When a fighting game not named Smash releases it is holding back content so they can sell you characters later. This is regardless of if the game is something like an NRS game with a 6-10ish hour story mode. Smash released complete, despite its DLC pack for 5 fighters for 25 bucks.... which is comparable to the 30 dollar 6 fighter season passes that the other "incomplete" game is selling.....

Hmmmmmmm



RaptorChrist on 05 March 2019
Machiavellian said:
Mandalore76 said:

The problem is that gamers born pre-2000 know that a lot of the things sold and celebrated as "extras" today are things that were part of the actual games years ago.  Unlockable/hidden characters, alternate costumes, etc.  Those were all in game to be unlocked as a reward for playing.  Today, these things are carved out and sold back to the consumer at additional cost.

Even back in the day and I have been playing games before Doom, there were Add on sold for the main games.  I do agree developers use to give away content for free back in the day but then they found out that was a problem.  When you give away content you work on for free then the expectations as we see in this thread is that developers should always give away content for free.  Gamers become entitled believing every developer can sustain this model and when you do want to sell content, they get an attitude and get all upset.  Also back in the day, the cost of a developer per head was not as expensive nor the amount of hours it take to develop, QA and test content (so many bugs back then).

I believe the reason issue if we are discussing this game is how you price your extra content, not that extra content should be free.  Most developers probably do not have a say so much in this process but the publisher instead.  Even then, if they really want to maximize purchases, doing incentives that promote customers to purchase the content is always a good move.  Something along the lines like if you bought 3 DLC for our games you get the next one free, stuff along those lines.  I guess it would be easier if these companies had their own store to do those things but not sure if PSN and XBL allows such models.

I respect your opinions, but I think that people who share your views are enabling this type of behavior to occur within the industry. As consumers, it's in our best interests to resist the abuse of things such as loot boxes, pay-to-win, etcetera, or else it would become the norm.

If Nintendo decided to implement pay-to-win loot boxes into the next Zelda game and it became the most profitable Zelda game ever released, that would suck in my opinion. And sure, you could sit around and say things like "the Zelda devs need food on their plates", but I'd be saying "screw that, they ruined Zelda".



d21lewis on 05 March 2019

There's a few ways to do dlc. It's up to the consumer to decide which method, if any, we will support. I admit though, if it's a game or franchise that I love, I'll pay for anything. Like with Valkyria Chronicles 4, there was one dlc mission that cost about $3-$5. I finished it in less than five minutes! But, because I love that series, I won't complain. A series that I'm lukewarm about won't get that free pass.



Around the Network
Shiken on 05 March 2019
Burning Typhoon said:
Shiken said:

Smash also has a 30 plus hour single player mode with a crap ton more interactive stages to fight in.  The comparison is completely fair and again, it puts these devs to shame.

I own smash, and I refuse to buy DoA6.  What's your point? I didn't say smash wasn't better, I'm saying the quantity of the fighters has nothing to do with why DoA is bad.  By that logic, Tobal 2 is better than smash because it has 200 characters.  I certainly wouldn't put Smash brothers ahead of Tekken 7.  Your exact words were, "Meanwhile Smash gives us 72 characters out of the box, putting developers like this to shame."  As if to say it was only about character counts.  And, the characters are locked.  They're not paid DLC, but, after coming off Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection, 6, 7, Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 HD, Mortal Kombat X and a few other fighters, having to unlock characters is tedious.  On steam, i've dumped 305 hours into Tekken 7.  I want to play the game, not do silly tasks I wouldn't have done if not for unlocking the character.

I have DoA5, on PS3, PS4 and PC.  The game was good, apart from the exact same DLC model DoA6 is doing.  I got Smash, and the limited amount of attacks in that game is really off-putting.  I put at least 7 hours into that game.  I understand what it is, but it's not a traditional fighter by any means.  I'd probably like it more than smash, but I refuse to support the game like this.  I'll wait for Ultimate and evaluate if it's worth the purchase.

I was speaking from a total content standpoint, not just looking at characters alone.  I can see why you may have misunderstood what I was saying though.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Chazore on 05 March 2019

Apart from me being bored of how stale the fighting genre has gotten, this tactic is a damn good way to put me off the genre, almost indefinitely.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Machiavellian on 05 March 2019
RaptorChrist said:
Machiavellian said:

Even back in the day and I have been playing games before Doom, there were Add on sold for the main games.  I do agree developers use to give away content for free back in the day but then they found out that was a problem.  When you give away content you work on for free then the expectations as we see in this thread is that developers should always give away content for free.  Gamers become entitled believing every developer can sustain this model and when you do want to sell content, they get an attitude and get all upset.  Also back in the day, the cost of a developer per head was not as expensive nor the amount of hours it take to develop, QA and test content (so many bugs back then).

I believe the reason issue if we are discussing this game is how you price your extra content, not that extra content should be free.  Most developers probably do not have a say so much in this process but the publisher instead.  Even then, if they really want to maximize purchases, doing incentives that promote customers to purchase the content is always a good move.  Something along the lines like if you bought 3 DLC for our games you get the next one free, stuff along those lines.  I guess it would be easier if these companies had their own store to do those things but not sure if PSN and XBL allows such models.

I respect your opinions, but I think that people who share your views are enabling this type of behavior to occur within the industry. As consumers, it's in our best interests to resist the abuse of things such as loot boxes, pay-to-win, etcetera, or else it would become the norm.

If Nintendo decided to implement pay-to-win loot boxes into the next Zelda game and it became the most profitable Zelda game ever released, that would suck in my opinion. And sure, you could sit around and say things like "the Zelda devs need food on their plates", but I'd be saying "screw that, they ruined Zelda".

You have me confused.  I stated that extra content should not be free and the expectation that it should be free is wrong.  If a developer wants to give away content for free that's great but not all developers have that luxury and stating one dev did this so they all must do it is wrong.

As far as loot boxes, pay to win or anything like that, I have not given an opinion.  What we were discussion has nothing to do with those models since none of them apply to this game.



Machiavellian on 05 March 2019
Neodegenerate said:
What this thread has taught me: When a fighting game not named Smash releases it is holding back content so they can sell you characters later. This is regardless of if the game is something like an NRS game with a 6-10ish hour story mode. Smash released complete, despite its DLC pack for 5 fighters for 25 bucks.... which is comparable to the 30 dollar 6 fighter season passes that the other "incomplete" game is selling.....

Hmmmmmmm

Why do people keep throwing Smash into the mix.  Smash is no way the same type of fighting game as Dead or Alive or any of the one vs one fighters.  Do you actually believe that one fighting stage in Dead or Alive takes the same type of effort as a fighting stage in Smash.  Hell you can also throw character development as well, move list, animation and effects.  Usually when a fighter is released on any of the other fighters they also come with their own stage and multiple costumes.  Also, lets not talk about Smash story mode as you are not doing the same thing over and over again but with some cutscenes in the middle.

Smash is a 4 player 2D brawler which is not in the same category as Dead or Alive and definitely cannot be compared in the same scope of effort.



Neodegenerate on 05 March 2019
Machiavellian said:
Neodegenerate said:
What this thread has taught me: When a fighting game not named Smash releases it is holding back content so they can sell you characters later. This is regardless of if the game is something like an NRS game with a 6-10ish hour story mode. Smash released complete, despite its DLC pack for 5 fighters for 25 bucks.... which is comparable to the 30 dollar 6 fighter season passes that the other "incomplete" game is selling.....

Hmmmmmmm

Why do people keep throwing Smash into the mix.  Smash is no way the same type of fighting game as Dead or Alive or any of the one vs one fighters.  Do you actually believe that one fighting stage in Dead or Alive takes the same type of effort as a fighting stage in Smash.  Hell you can also throw character development as well, move list, animation and effects.  Usually when a fighter is released on any of the other fighters they also come with their own stage and multiple costumes.  Also, lets not talk about Smash story mode as you are not doing the same thing over and over again but with some cutscenes in the middle.

Smash is a 4 player 2D brawler which is not in the same category as Dead or Alive and definitely cannot be compared in the same scope of effort.

You are a bit more worked up about this topic than I am.  To correct one thing though, Smash is a game built using 3D models.  It is just presented by the camera as a 2D game because that is the aesthetic and feel they are going for.

You also may have misquoted me here.  My post is pointing out the hypocrisy of some people who are swearing off fighters with DLC practices but simultaneously singing the praises of Smash Ultimate, another game with DLC practices.