I'd love to compete in one of these things and destroy everyone but the Best Buys are usually too far away and I'm only mostly sure I can destroy everyone there. However, if there is one close by to compete in, I'll be at the Nokia theatre. I'm mostly positive.
@onery I used to like debate, but now I hate it. People will not listen to you for anything. If it's an argument it's just a bad idea for me to get into it. If it's a question it's fine. That's why I'm not trying to convince you of anything. That's when it gets bad. This is just a question and answer. That can easily become a debate but I'm trying to practice avoiding that.
Yeah, I'd heard of Shovel Knight's DLC and the fact that they were giving out their DLC for free is part of the reason I was against other's DLC being paid. That said it makes sense that not all developers can afford that model and would need an additional cashflow between games. They don't know if they can always rely on kickstarter so it makes sense to try to get some extra money in the bank. I'm surprised(not really) that I didn't think of that myself. Anyway that is a much better answer and one I actually think justifies it. I still don't necessarily like it but it makes sense to try not to rely fully on kickstarter in the future. Honestly I was thinking of these companies more as dream hobbies(which I'm sure some of them are) than businesses and that's a bit of a mistake. Still, most businesses have to go through a bank, pitch their ideas to them, and take out a loan if they can't cover their costs. A nearly riskless endeavor like kickstarter can easily be taken advantage of so of course I still don't trust these things fully. Not to mention they get to keep all profits rather than having to repay the sponsors, plus tons of free advertising. Like I said in my previous post it's free money, but how much they're gonna need now and in the future really depends. If they think they need the "extra" it might actually be justified. I'm not that business smart so I can't really say either way.
That Hand of Fate would seriously bother me if I was into it. I can sometimes be perturbed when I can't get absolutely everything so I'd probably be hesitant to even buy it since I'd never even heard of it til now. I doubt the cards actually even matter but not being able to get them would bother me. I have the same problem with event Pokémon. I don't really even care about the Pokémon itself,(except Diancie but I've got that so) but the fact I can't get it perturbs me.
I don't have much to say about the Shadowrun game, other than that I'm a little confused about what you're telling me they did. Did they use funds from the game's sales to make the DLC or did they use the funds they had leftover after completing the main game?
I didn't read much on their plans or dev philosophies. My opinion changes a bit knowing they're trying to avoid adding too much initially and instead focusing on the features they'd originally planned. Makes the idea of the DLC actually being a separate project seem a bit more legit.
As for the tl;dr part. Whether or not having big DLC for cheap is selling themselves short or not sort of depends for me but I don't feel like going there right now. Heh.
You said in the end twice and didn't capitalize my name. The heck is wrong with you? That aside that was a good comment. Thanks for helping me understand a bit more why you'd be ok with this. Makes me more ok with it too.
That Weegi is good. That Pikachu would have beat me too I can tell cuz I fought one like it(Probably a bit worse) before and lost...almost won the third one though. Anyway I'd like to play that well. I feel like I've actually gotten pretty good but I'm too stubborn to visit Smashboards and learn terminology lawl.
@onery I'm not going to mince words or act like I care what was said. Your long-winded response is just annoying to be honest. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm wondering something and though I haven't read your full post(Probably not even three full sentences but I skimmed to get the geist of it) I doubt it answered my question.
I have no problem with paid DLC, not even day one, however this is a fan-funded game. How is it right to make a stretch goal, and have fans cover the development costs, for something that'll line your pocket? It should be free since it's not costing you anything to make it why is it costing the consumer? Answer me that. And why dothe people who payed for the game only get the DLC free? They should get the game free because they're the ones who funded it. Everyone shoud get the DLC free.
In case my post was also tl:dr or the way I write is too confusing, only read this next part and ignore the rest.
Question: Why charge extra for something someone else paid for?
Answer that and leave out the pointless history lesson about Expansion packs. I can think of one answer myself. "You're going to charge for the game fans paid for so why not the DLC?" I think that's a pretty good answer, and it's fine if you think that answer's good enough. For me however, acting like the DLC is somehow seperate from the main project seems wrong to me here. They got all the funding at the same time, and even if they start making the DLC later it's still the same project. It's not like real DLC where a seperate budget is assigned for you to make additional content, this is all one budget. Besides getting a game funded for you is already a huge blessing and you get free money(I bet man-hours are covered in Kickstarter as well) when you sell the product so why do you need more? It's like you give someone ingredients to make you and your friends a burger. They tell you the burger will taste better with condiments so you give them those to add to it. They then charge you and your friends $2.00 each per burger and your friends have to pay an additional .50 for the condiments. Seems like bull to me but I guess some would say it's proper compensation for the workload. That's also not a perfect example since the backers that have to buy the game didn't give all that much, and the example assumes you gave all the ingredients...which no individual fan did. Anyway that answer is pretty good and might be good enough for some(which is ok) but not for me. If others are fine with it, cool but I'm not. Do you have another answer?
P.S. @onery: Sorry,(I'm not really sorry) I know I didn't answer you in the most civil way but a long post that had practically nothing to do with what I said(at least the beginning of it didn't but like I said, haven't read it all yet) or asked ticked me off. I guess I'll read your whole post now even though the condescending "well back in the day they had" will make me have a hard time. I hope you don't still have problems figuring out what I have a problem with but judging by past conversation's it wouldn't surprise me if you do. That's not a slight against you unless you still don't understand, that's a slight against the others I've met. Heck, maybe it's a slight against me, maybe I just have a weird way of talking that's difficult to understand. I doubt that's it because I've seen it happen to other people a lot too but maybe they have the same problem. Yeah, I understand my post also comes across as condescending but you had it coming. I don't usually see posts as blatantly combative as the one I'm making here, so maybe this post will get deleted, or I'll get banned but if that's the case I don't belong here anyway. I'm still debating with myself whether I hate comments more than I like them or not so I'll let the people in charge here decide whether I'll stay.
@Monado_III: Thank you for a good answer, though I completely missed it after my ( admittedly sensitive) button was pressed. I disagree that it's the same thing, and depending on the final price 5$ might be high. For example if it's like Mighty no.9 where the game is(numbers might be wrong) $20 and the DLC is like $11 it seems wrong. Is the game 55% bigger with that DLC? I doubt it. I'm kind of assuming this game will be $30 though so I guess $5 is cool. Anyway, if you're fine with the DLC that's fine. I won't argue with you it's your money/philosophy. Also backers who pay a certain amount get everything free and the DLC is possibly free even if you only give a penny(I haven't checked for asterisks yet) so it's a bit justifiable in that way. I still don't like it though.
@onery: I read your full post and I'm sorry(for realsies this time, like almost 68% sorry) it was not nearly as condescending as it seemed based on the first sentence but it had nothing to do with my issue. I also worded my first comment in a bad way, or rather it would have sounded better if I'd left out the first sentence. "I don't see how this could be seen as good practice."(paraphrasing?) sets the wrong tone. My bad bro.(sis?) Forgive?
Edit: Actually I said "I have no idea how this could possibly be considered good practice." which is really bad and makes me almost 6% more sorry. Makes it sound like I think you're an idiot for thinking it's good practice, which I don't. I legitimately had no idea why you'd think that, but I can sort of understand now, after thinking about it some more. Anyway, derp. It was my bad...well more like 82% my bad but I digress.
@onery I have no idea how this could possibly be considered good practice. A kickstarter game should never have paid DLC as far as I'm concerned. Even if backers get it free. The only reason I can sort of understand is because it seems Playtonics is at least paying for some of the development out of their own pocket.
@Geonjaha I actually disagree. Not every game has to cater to colour-blind or otherwise disabled people. No matter what there'll always be people who have difficulty playing your game. Regardless of that pushing "standards" in my experience is just annoying and limiting. If I made a game that used colour to solve a puzzle I wouldn't want to have to completely redo it for people who can't see the colours. If I made a game where you need audio clues to time your attacks on a boss properly I wouldn't want to redo it for people who can't hear. There are a lot of other examples I can make but I'll leave it. You're never gonna make a video game inclusive enough for Hellen Keller.
If a game like Splatoon can easily include this feature, and decides to incorporate it, good. If a game can easily include this feature and doesn't incorporate it, oh well. All the people saying "why didn't you do this", "why wasn't this included" are just super annoying. I guess I might have done that before but I'm gonna try not to anymore because it's super annoying.
@NintendoFan64 Some people once got into an argument with me over whether colours in a small image looked the same or not. I took a dropping tool and they still tried to argue with me lol. I guess it's possible they all had some degree of colour-blindness instead of bias blindness heh. Anyway, supposedly 1 in 12 males have some degree of color-blindness. My color vision is perfect though, I took an online test so it must be true. I bet I can see infrared.
It's not that it's day one DLC. It's that it's day one DLC when it didn't cost them a cent. I can understand day one DLC if they specifically set aside money for DLC aside from the main budget. That content wouldn't have been there if they hadn't added extra to the budget...(still can be shady though) Why, however do they have charged DLC when they didn't even cover their own development costs? I honestly think it's because they see how much the fans want to support Inafune and Mega Man. If I'm not misinformed about all this I'd even say Inafune had a large hand in Capcom's business practices. Someone please explain this because I am honestly confused. It seems like they're blatantly taking advantage of Mega Man fans' exceptionally generous support.
Note: I'm not one of these fans(I've probably only played one official Mega Man game, and two fan-made ones), but they gave over 4 million for you to make this game, and you still want all this extra? What gives? I don't understand. I literally don't. I'm trying to figure it out in my brain and asking here cuz I don't feel like searching the net for the answer.
Ok guys I know I'll tick people off if I just say it's a scam but I don't know much about this game and haven't done much research. This post is made entirely from what I think I know so I'm not saying this game is a scam. I'm asking you to tell me where I got misinformation and to explain why it isn't a scam.
Ok so basically I only know things from a bystander standpoint. I've seen multiple articles on Siliconera about this game...that's pretty much wher all my info comes from. Anyway I believe that they got over 4 million dollars to make this game(like 2-3 years ago?) which I believe smashed every stretch goal by a large amount. The game then went back up on kickstarter over a year later because supposedly they couldn't afford voice actors even though an animated series had been announced. They didn't get their 100,000, or more extra dollars, which is apparently what it costs to get voice actors for two languages, so they had the fans vote on one language...and now they have enough for like...scratch that I notice those are subtitles but apparently English is now a thing even though they supposedly coudn't afford it.
Anyway it takes them this long to finish the game, they ask for extra money even though they got a ton extra, and the DLC is a bonus for backers. I don't understand that last part. Usually DLC is defended by saying that it has its own seperate budget and sales projections but can you really use that excuse when the whole game was paid for by someone else? If you ask me backers should get the GAME free not the DLC. Either that or a minature statue of Beck or something. As for the DLC everyone should get it free because making it doesn't cost them a dime and it's been announced before the game comes out? As day 1 DLC? Day 1 DLC that's already included ON THE DISC VERSION!? Shovel Knight was a kickstarter project and it gives free DLC so why can't this?
But like I said explain how this isn't a scam. Maybe the DLC isn't actually on the disc like I'm assuming and maybe Inafune's company is actually taking some money out of their own pocket. Tell me if I got stuff wrong but as of now I don't trust this game or the creators one bit, and it might just be because I got facts wrong. I doubt I got it wrong enough to change my mind but if I did please tell me.
I think the moon might actually be magic. If it was just a black hole there wouldn't be the gap in the teeth...or a face on it because everything would be pulled into it in a more perfect sphere. Further evidence of my theory is that there is a giant empty space with a grass field and tree inside it. I admit my theory sounds crazy but magic could possibly exist in the Zelda universe.
Comments 330
Re: Video: Take A Look At The Evolution Of Fairies In The Legend Of Zelda Series
@Tsurii897 Hint: She only saw the Great Fairy from Hyrule Warriors.
Fairy Queen from Wind Waker is most best.
Answer: She didn't watch the video, she looked at the thumbnail.
Re: Weirdness: Fred Savage Seems Very Much In Favour Of The Nintendo World Championships 2015
@97alexk Ninetendo*
Re: Splatoon Global Testfire is Confirmed for One More Round
@rjejr Dang you're lame. I can respect that though.
Oh at first I thought it was this Saturday and was like. So I won't get to play it this time. Meh. But God willing I will be able to on the 23rd.
Re: Reaction: Nintendo's E3 Plans are a Perfect Blend of Humour, Retro Charm and a Hint of Madness
I'd love to compete in one of these things and destroy everyone but the Best Buys are usually too far away and I'm only mostly sure I can destroy everyone there. However, if there is one close by to compete in, I'll be at the Nokia theatre. I'm mostly positive.
Re: Playtonic Confirms Post-Release DLC as the Next Stretch Goal for Yooka-Laylee
@onery
I used to like debate, but now I hate it. People will not listen to you for anything. If it's an argument it's just a bad idea for me to get into it. If it's a question it's fine. That's why I'm not trying to convince you of anything. That's when it gets bad. This is just a question and answer. That can easily become a debate but I'm trying to practice avoiding that.
Yeah, I'd heard of Shovel Knight's DLC and the fact that they were giving out their DLC for free is part of the reason I was against other's DLC being paid. That said it makes sense that not all developers can afford that model and would need an additional cashflow between games. They don't know if they can always rely on kickstarter so it makes sense to try to get some extra money in the bank. I'm surprised(not really) that I didn't think of that myself. Anyway that is a much better answer and one I actually think justifies it. I still don't necessarily like it but it makes sense to try not to rely fully on kickstarter in the future. Honestly I was thinking of these companies more as dream hobbies(which I'm sure some of them are) than businesses and that's a bit of a mistake. Still, most businesses have to go through a bank, pitch their ideas to them, and take out a loan if they can't cover their costs. A nearly riskless endeavor like kickstarter can easily be taken advantage of so of course I still don't trust these things fully. Not to mention they get to keep all profits rather than having to repay the sponsors, plus tons of free advertising. Like I said in my previous post it's free money, but how much they're gonna need now and in the future really depends. If they think they need the "extra" it might actually be justified. I'm not that business smart so I can't really say either way.
That Hand of Fate would seriously bother me if I was into it. I can sometimes be perturbed when I can't get absolutely everything so I'd probably be hesitant to even buy it since I'd never even heard of it til now. I doubt the cards actually even matter but not being able to get them would bother me. I have the same problem with event Pokémon. I don't really even care about the Pokémon itself,(except Diancie but I've got that so) but the fact I can't get it perturbs me.
I don't have much to say about the Shadowrun game, other than that I'm a little confused about what you're telling me they did. Did they use funds from the game's sales to make the DLC or did they use the funds they had leftover after completing the main game?
I didn't read much on their plans or dev philosophies. My opinion changes a bit knowing they're trying to avoid adding too much initially and instead focusing on the features they'd originally planned. Makes the idea of the DLC actually being a separate project seem a bit more legit.
As for the tl;dr part. Whether or not having big DLC for cheap is selling themselves short or not sort of depends for me but I don't feel like going there right now. Heh.
You said in the end twice and didn't capitalize my name. The heck is wrong with you? That aside that was a good comment. Thanks for helping me understand a bit more why you'd be ok with this. Makes me more ok with it too.
Re: Sit Tight, Nintendo Will Announce Its E3 2015 Plans Tomorrow
@TSB Those are cool ideas.
Re: Iwata: 3DS Has Plenty Of Room For Growth, Female Gamers Key To Console's Continued Success In Japan
@tsukipon I clicked on this article to read this comment. I knew it'd be here.
Re: Ninterview: Talking Super Smash Bros. With UK Grand Master James Miller
That Weegi is good. That Pikachu would have beat me too I can tell cuz I fought one like it(Probably a bit worse) before and lost...almost won the third one though. Anyway I'd like to play that well. I feel like I've actually gotten pretty good but I'm too stubborn to visit Smashboards and learn terminology lawl.
Re: Playtonic Confirms Post-Release DLC as the Next Stretch Goal for Yooka-Laylee
@onery I'm not going to mince words or act like I care what was said. Your long-winded response is just annoying to be honest. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm wondering something and though I haven't read your full post(Probably not even three full sentences but I skimmed to get the geist of it) I doubt it answered my question.
I have no problem with paid DLC, not even day one, however this is a fan-funded game. How is it right to make a stretch goal, and have fans cover the development costs, for something that'll line your pocket? It should be free since it's not costing you anything to make it why is it costing the consumer? Answer me that. And why dothe people who payed for the game only get the DLC free? They should get the game free because they're the ones who funded it. Everyone shoud get the DLC free.
In case my post was also tl:dr or the way I write is too confusing, only read this next part and ignore the rest.
Question: Why charge extra for something someone else paid for?
Answer that and leave out the pointless history lesson about Expansion packs. I can think of one answer myself. "You're going to charge for the game fans paid for so why not the DLC?" I think that's a pretty good answer, and it's fine if you think that answer's good enough. For me however, acting like the DLC is somehow seperate from the main project seems wrong to me here. They got all the funding at the same time, and even if they start making the DLC later it's still the same project. It's not like real DLC where a seperate budget is assigned for you to make additional content, this is all one budget. Besides getting a game funded for you is already a huge blessing and you get free money(I bet man-hours are covered in Kickstarter as well) when you sell the product so why do you need more? It's like you give someone ingredients to make you and your friends a burger. They tell you the burger will taste better with condiments so you give them those to add to it. They then charge you and your friends $2.00 each per burger and your friends have to pay an additional .50 for the condiments. Seems like bull to me but I guess some would say it's proper compensation for the workload. That's also not a perfect example since the backers that have to buy the game didn't give all that much, and the example assumes you gave all the ingredients...which no individual fan did. Anyway that answer is pretty good and might be good enough for some(which is ok) but not for me. If others are fine with it, cool but I'm not. Do you have another answer?
P.S. @onery: Sorry,(I'm not really sorry) I know I didn't answer you in the most civil way but a long post that had practically nothing to do with what I said(at least the beginning of it didn't but like I said, haven't read it all yet) or asked ticked me off. I guess I'll read your whole post now even though the condescending "well back in the day they had" will make me have a hard time. I hope you don't still have problems figuring out what I have a problem with but judging by past conversation's it wouldn't surprise me if you do. That's not a slight against you unless you still don't understand, that's a slight against the others I've met. Heck, maybe it's a slight against me, maybe I just have a weird way of talking that's difficult to understand. I doubt that's it because I've seen it happen to other people a lot too but maybe they have the same problem. Yeah, I understand my post also comes across as condescending but you had it coming. I don't usually see posts as blatantly combative as the one I'm making here, so maybe this post will get deleted, or I'll get banned but if that's the case I don't belong here anyway. I'm still debating with myself whether I hate comments more than I like them or not so I'll let the people in charge here decide whether I'll stay.
@Monado_III: Thank you for a good answer, though I completely missed it after my ( admittedly sensitive) button was pressed. I disagree that it's the same thing, and depending on the final price 5$ might be high. For example if it's like Mighty no.9 where the game is(numbers might be wrong) $20 and the DLC is like $11 it seems wrong. Is the game 55% bigger with that DLC? I doubt it. I'm kind of assuming this game will be $30 though so I guess $5 is cool. Anyway, if you're fine with the DLC that's fine. I won't argue with you it's your money/philosophy. Also backers who pay a certain amount get everything free and the DLC is possibly free even if you only give a penny(I haven't checked for asterisks yet) so it's a bit justifiable in that way. I still don't like it though.
@onery: I read your full post and I'm sorry(for realsies this time, like almost 68% sorry) it was not nearly as condescending as it seemed based on the first sentence but it had nothing to do with my issue. I also worded my first comment in a bad way, or rather it would have sounded better if I'd left out the first sentence. "I don't see how this could be seen as good practice."(paraphrasing?) sets the wrong tone. My bad bro.(sis?) Forgive?
Edit: Actually I said "I have no idea how this could possibly be considered good practice." which is really bad and makes me almost 6% more sorry. Makes it sound like I think you're an idiot for thinking it's good practice, which I don't. I legitimately had no idea why you'd think that, but I can sort of understand now, after thinking about it some more. Anyway, derp. It was my bad...well more like 82% my bad but I digress.
Re: Playtonic Confirms Post-Release DLC as the Next Stretch Goal for Yooka-Laylee
@onery I have no idea how this could possibly be considered good practice. A kickstarter game should never have paid DLC as far as I'm concerned. Even if backers get it free. The only reason I can sort of understand is because it seems Playtonics is at least paying for some of the development out of their own pocket.
Re: Nintendo's E3 Focus to Reportedly be on Wii U and 3DS, not Smart Devices or NX
@IronMan28 No NX discussion is going to be on everyone's list of disappointments for this year's E3. Mark my words.
@The__Goomba Even after stating it a second time people are expecting it.
Re: Nintendo's E3 Focus to Reportedly be on Wii U and 3DS, not Smart Devices or NX
@FragRed I agree with @Decapre, my instincts tell me thus. Watch. Fee is always right. You'll probably like it but Fee will hate it.
Re: Reminder: The First Splatoon Global Testfire Details Are Out
That was fun. I am clearly the best Splatoon player in the world, but that's no surprise cuz I'm the best player in general. #unofficially
Re: Reminder: The First Splatoon Global Testfire Details Are Out
So hype! Ten more minutes!
Re: Reminder: The First Splatoon Global Testfire Details Are Out
@liljmoore 10:00 King of redundancy. This is actually the third time this has been stated. It was also in the first comment.
Re: Reminder: The First Splatoon Global Testfire Details Are Out
@edgedino Clearly he's too stoked to sleep.
Re: Don't Worry Colour-Blind Gamers, Splatoon Has Got Your Back
@CrimSkies97 Watch yourself there, I have perfect colour vision.
Re: Reminder: The First Splatoon Global Testfire Details Are Out
4 more hours...or more like 3:30
Your roommates can deal. Who sleeps at 10:00-11:00 anyway? Gotta be at least midnight or you waste a vital part of the day.
Re: Don't Worry Colour-Blind Gamers, Splatoon Has Got Your Back
@MadAdam81 Lol. I like how you alternated. You say "50$" American, then say "note" which is English.
Re: Reaction: The Splatoon Global Testfire Demo Is a Clever Nintendo Direct Highlight
Aww, some people won't be able to play the demo? This get's all my feels feeling. How sad!
Re: Don't Worry Colour-Blind Gamers, Splatoon Has Got Your Back
@Geonjaha I actually disagree. Not every game has to cater to colour-blind or otherwise disabled people. No matter what there'll always be people who have difficulty playing your game. Regardless of that pushing "standards" in my experience is just annoying and limiting. If I made a game that used colour to solve a puzzle I wouldn't want to have to completely redo it for people who can't see the colours. If I made a game where you need audio clues to time your attacks on a boss properly I wouldn't want to redo it for people who can't hear. There are a lot of other examples I can make but I'll leave it. You're never gonna make a video game inclusive enough for Hellen Keller.
If a game like Splatoon can easily include this feature, and decides to incorporate it, good. If a game can easily include this feature and doesn't incorporate it, oh well. All the people saying "why didn't you do this", "why wasn't this included" are just super annoying. I guess I might have done that before but I'm gonna try not to anymore because it's super annoying.
Re: Don't Worry Colour-Blind Gamers, Splatoon Has Got Your Back
@NintendoFan64 Some people once got into an argument with me over whether colours in a small image looked the same or not. I took a dropping tool and they still tried to argue with me lol. I guess it's possible they all had some degree of colour-blindness instead of bias blindness heh. Anyway, supposedly 1 in 12 males have some degree of color-blindness. My color vision is perfect though, I took an online test so it must be true. I bet I can see infrared.
http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge
After reading Galactrix's comment I decided to alternate my spelling.
Re: Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate's May DLC Brings Metroid, Mega Man and Street Fighter Madness
I'm still HR 7 and from what I can tell that's all G-rank...:/
Re: Fire Emblem's Two Versions Will Offer Very Different Challenges
@TheWPCTraveler Yep, better imouto=better buy. I'm joining the white people this time...I mean Nohr.
Re: The Legend of Zeldo: Lonk's Awakening is an iOS Flappy Bird Clone, and an Abomination
@scamander Hahahaha that last part was a test right? Well I understood you were joking there at least since I'm American.
Re: Mighty No. 9 Confirmed for September Release, Along With Physical Retail Version
It's not that it's day one DLC. It's that it's day one DLC when it didn't cost them a cent. I can understand day one DLC if they specifically set aside money for DLC aside from the main budget. That content wouldn't have been there if they hadn't added extra to the budget...(still can be shady though) Why, however do they have charged DLC when they didn't even cover their own development costs? I honestly think it's because they see how much the fans want to support Inafune and Mega Man. If I'm not misinformed about all this I'd even say Inafune had a large hand in Capcom's business practices. Someone please explain this because I am honestly confused. It seems like they're blatantly taking advantage of Mega Man fans' exceptionally generous support.
Note: I'm not one of these fans(I've probably only played one official Mega Man game, and two fan-made ones), but they gave over 4 million for you to make this game, and you still want all this extra? What gives? I don't understand. I literally don't. I'm trying to figure it out in my brain and asking here cuz I don't feel like searching the net for the answer.
Re: Mighty No. 9 Confirmed for September Release, Along With Physical Retail Version
Ok guys I know I'll tick people off if I just say it's a scam but I don't know much about this game and haven't done much research. This post is made entirely from what I think I know so I'm not saying this game is a scam. I'm asking you to tell me where I got misinformation and to explain why it isn't a scam.
Ok so basically I only know things from a bystander standpoint. I've seen multiple articles on Siliconera about this game...that's pretty much wher all my info comes from. Anyway I believe that they got over 4 million dollars to make this game(like 2-3 years ago?) which I believe smashed every stretch goal by a large amount. The game then went back up on kickstarter over a year later because supposedly they couldn't afford voice actors even though an animated series had been announced. They didn't get their 100,000, or more extra dollars, which is apparently what it costs to get voice actors for two languages, so they had the fans vote on one language...and now they have enough for like...scratch that I notice those are subtitles but apparently English is now a thing even though they supposedly coudn't afford it.
Anyway it takes them this long to finish the game, they ask for extra money even though they got a ton extra, and the DLC is a bonus for backers. I don't understand that last part. Usually DLC is defended by saying that it has its own seperate budget and sales projections but can you really use that excuse when the whole game was paid for by someone else? If you ask me backers should get the GAME free not the DLC. Either that or a minature statue of Beck or something. As for the DLC everyone should get it free because making it doesn't cost them a dime and it's been announced before the game comes out? As day 1 DLC? Day 1 DLC that's already included ON THE DISC VERSION!? Shovel Knight was a kickstarter project and it gives free DLC so why can't this?
But like I said explain how this isn't a scam. Maybe the DLC isn't actually on the disc like I'm assuming and maybe Inafune's company is actually taking some money out of their own pocket. Tell me if I got stuff wrong but as of now I don't trust this game or the creators one bit, and it might just be because I got facts wrong. I doubt I got it wrong enough to change my mind but if I did please tell me.
Re: Masahiro Sakurai Shares His Positive Feelings on Producing "Authentic" Super Smash Bros. DLC With a Smaller Team
Sakurai's a pretty cool guy.
:/
Yeah, that's all I'm gonna say.
Re: Weirdness: The Moon in Majora's Mask Probably Has a Black Hole Inside, Because Science
I think the moon might actually be magic. If it was just a black hole there wouldn't be the gap in the teeth...or a face on it because everything would be pulled into it in a more perfect sphere. Further evidence of my theory is that there is a giant empty space with a grass field and tree inside it. I admit my theory sounds crazy but magic could possibly exist in the Zelda universe.
Re: Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate April DLC Available Now, Featuring Sonic Palico Gear
I wanted the Kirin armors but I didn't want to go past HR 7 so I completed Three Virtues 11 times. I'm cursed for all my unicorn killing though.