onery

onery

Loves anime, manga and games!

Comments 258

Re: Nintendo Badge Arcade is Out Now in North America

onery

Real Life crane game: Pay $10, receive 20 tokens. 1 token = 1 play. For casual crane gamers, 20 plays won't be enough to get item unless absolutely lucky. More will be required to win... something.

Digital crane game in this case: Pay $10 (plus tax I'm assuming), receive 50 plays ($1 (plus tax) for 1 play). In one play it is entirely possible to win several badges (depends on choice of machine). 50 plays = lots of chances to win badges. Additionally, playing $2 (with taxes) will net you an exclusive theme.

To my mind this game emulates a real arcade except it bumps the chances of winning something up loads. Had the chances been identical to that of an actual crane game machine then I would be amongst the first to cry foul. As it stands though, having played the 3DS game a little (i.e. the free plays), it's alright as the chances to win a badge on the slots are quite high generally.

To those debasing the fact that these are digital items and not real stuff, well two things spring to mind. Firstly: applications you purchase on your phone and eshop games are a few examples of items we purchase in this ever increasingly digitized age. Secondly: for crane game prizes, how many of these are worth the money put into the game? For the average person they'll need to shell out loads of tokens to get them (not counting luck factor of course).

Note that while this post may attempt to justify the microtransactions within the game, personally I'm not too big of a fan of it much. Granted it's pay-to-play at least and not pay-to-win, which is alright for a free-to-play game; but I'm not really part of the target for this. This game is relatively inoffensive though so I'll pop by once in awhile to try win those practice badges to try get some free plays.

Re: Poll: Does Nintendo's Drive Towards Multiplayer Gaming Appeal to You?

onery

While I absolutely adore single player games and the way they can draw the player into their world, I do believe there is no harm in creating experiences that are focused on sharing the playthrough together with another. Co-op campaigns are something that is still relatively rare and the ability to enjoy a game with another and to share and overcome the hardships and trials together is one aspect of gaming that is not fully explored yet I feel. I do appreciate what the upcoming Zelda and Federation Force game is attempting to do.

Also, the amiibo focused Animal Crossing WiiU game is (while in the wake of amiibo shortages a bit of an unwelcome news... though here's hoping they sort that out) basically what looks like a digital Game of Life, a board game which I'm rather fond of. So I may be in the minority (probably the only at this point) but I would like to see this through especially if the concept is executed well.

Re: Hyrule Warriors

onery

It may be that owning this game will unlock the wind wakers as characters in the WiiU version. I could've sworn I saw a picture indicating that something like that might be the case...

Re: Wii U Stretch Goal Seemingly Teased for Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night

onery

I backed it sometime ago because well, I would love to see more of metroidvania style games, even if they weren't going to be on Nintendo consoles (had in mind to get a PS4 copy to play with friends if the co-op is really available for the entire campaign...), but well... if it does come out on the WiiU... YNot?

Also, Kickstartdo what Konamdon't. Hopefully this game will do well.

Re: ​Playtonic Confirms Post-Release DLC as the Next Stretch Goal for Yooka-Laylee

onery

@fee no problem and no harm done guv. I do have a tendency to rattle on and on so I understand if my post/replies can feel out of place or as you put it feel condescending but believe me when I say that I have no such intentions. Personally, I believe history can teach us a great number of things and hence why I linked expansion paks of the past to DLC in response to your initial query. Also I like a good debate, even if I'm not the most eloquent or the most informed person to do so. Still, it is an opportunity to see both sides of a coin and I like that.

With that said, I'll just add some of my last couple of cents to your question: "Why charge extra for something someone else paid for?" [A little warning, I did mention that I do tend to go on, so be prepared for a long post if you can be bothered to read it (believe me, I have to prepare myself to read such posts myself). I'll try to leave a tl;dr option at the end but I fear it may not accurately surmise my post and thoughts so be forewarned.]

Honestly, as a standalone question it is a rather loaded question. I mean, one could answer that that's how business works. A retailer buys goods from a wholesaler and resells the goods at a marked up price to consumers for profit. It's standard business practice at best and honestly unless the retailer is marking up the prices to exorbitant prices, it's hard to fault the retailer as the profits obtained only serve to allow his/her business to continue running.

However, I understand that of course that this isn't really what you mean. With added context of Kickstarter and games, the question fleshes out a bit enough to perhaps provide some insight when attempting to answer the above question.

Having looked up some Kickstarter games for comparison, I've come up with some thoughts on the issue. Taking one of the more successful titles to have come out from KS incubation, Shovel Knight, one observes that while in the campaign itself it didn't outright promise DLC as stretch goals, during development the decision was made to have the extra features added to the game as post-launch DLC and to concentrate the main development time on polishing and releasing the game. It was also decided that these extra features were to be released as free DLC. So with this we have one of the best games of 2014 in a more or less complete form with extra content on the way for existing owners of the game. The only downside to this is that while working on these extra content, they are very much dependent on sales of Shovel Knight to float them (remember, they are a small indie company initially relying on crowdfunding) until they can plan and develop the next game. The extra DLC includes a remixed adventure featuring Plague Knight, a battle mode where one can play as bosses and a gender swap mode. Quite how much of these will see the light of day is not yet known (though I hope all of them do), but all these features add up to basically another Shovel Knight game potentially doubling the original game's lifespan. With this, had the developers at Yatch Club games decide to charge (reasonably) for this expansion I believe it may be a fair option.

Hand of Fate, another Kickstarter success, is a roguelike adventure involving cards. In the game's Kickstater pitch, stretch goals were introduced which include exclusive cards available only for Kickstarter backers as thanks for donating towards the game's development. Now these cards probably were just different in design and may not impact gameplay too drastically, however there still remains the fact that for non-KS backers the game is inherently incomplete with missing cards available only for KS backers. I don't believe the cards are planned to be released as DLC so the game will remain ever slightly less than that experienced by backers.

Finally Shadowrun Returns. This game was again, another wildly successful Kickstarter game and with the main game's development complete, the developers went immediately to working on what is effectively an expansion pak, Shadowrun Returns: Dragonfall. This once completed was released as paid DLC as an expansion that could only be played if you had the original game; though they released a director's edition that had Dragonfall as a standalone game with extra maps. With this, the developer is free to do what they like with their funds obtained from what is effectively the game, it's DLC and the DLC's final form. They have opted to go for another Kickstarter, which in itself isn't inherently bad as they have proved themselves competent from their previous one.

With these three examples we already see various approaches different developers have taken to pitch their games and subsequently deliver them. Keep in mind these examples are the more honorable of their kind and I recognize that there are many many dubious examples in Kickstarter. In light of DLC however we see the many ways one can introduce them, whether as free updates, exclusives or even as development completely separate and not mentioned at all in the original pitch.

In the case of Yooka-Laylee, the developer have decided to make an upper level stretch goal as a promise to work on post-launch DLC that will have no impact on current development for the game in question and to have it free for backers. This implies that the DLC will be available for non-backers and hence exclusivity will not be an issue. Also with what they said they want to avoid (feature bloating of funds causing effectively the Double Fine Adventure kerfuffle) they stressed that any additional funding will be used to improve on current features. This is not to say that this is foolproof but should they portion off and set aside an appropriate amount from the donated funds to work on the DLC (instead of blowing it all on extravagant parties and unrelated stuff) then it can be said that the backers have also funded the DLC (keep in mind that funding does not equate development, it is the prelude to). With that in mind, the fact that the backers get it free while non-backers have to pay for it is somewhat justified I feel. Also with sales from the game and its DLC the developers will have something to float them till their next project so we won't see them go down anytime soon (not that Yatch Club games are I believe, as sales of their main game should be strong enough to last till their next development process for their next game).

tl;dr It's not really about charging extra, but actually having the DLC or expansion as paid content rather as free updates. There exist many reasons and justifications for either side but really as long as the developers in question (Playtonic, if you're reading this make the collect-a-thon magic come back! ) are competent, trustworthy and deliver a strong and awesome product. If so, the question we should really ask is: "What does the DLC consist of and how much is it?" Should the DLC be a bunch of clothes for $6.99 then that's a rip-off, even for free. On the other hand if the DLC consists of several new levels, new multiplayer modes, new items and even secret playable characters… if it were to be priced at $6.99 one would feel as if Playtonic were selling themselves for cheap.

Note to all: remember in the end that in the end, Kickstarter is a platform for introducing ideas and concepts in exchange for funding and not a storefront. Project creators of course tempt backers with promises of delivering the products touted in question and this cannot be equated to a preorder as in the vast majority of products shown are mere concept arts, flash-in-the-pan ideas or even someone's rambling they decided to record and stick it onto their campaign's page. I don't blame fee's hesitance or disdain at Playtonic's recent announcement of their final stretch goal as really the history of Kickstarter has taught us to become so. I myself have backed numerous projects that are either in dev hell, delayed to bits or even just not working 'as advertised' (lol). That said, if a developer is being transparent with their plans for the donated money, shown competency in their relative fields and not lied or misled backers, then by all means contribute to those projects with caution and careful thinking.

Re: ​Playtonic Confirms Post-Release DLC as the Next Stretch Goal for Yooka-Laylee

onery

@Fee To reply to your good self, one will have to take a trip back in time back to when there exists a concept called 'Expansion Paks'. Back then when games were completed and pushed out to retail, developers set about making extra content for their games, maybe new campaigns or new units, and sold them as Expansion Paks. Some major examples include Warcraft 2: The Dark Portal, Red Alert: Aftermath and Doom 2: Hell on Earth; all of which expanded on their respective games with extra content. Granted there were a few expansion Paks that felt tacked on and honestly unnecessary (e.g. most of The Sims costumed expansion paks... Ughhh), but the benefits of adding content past a game's release to lengthen a game's lifespan outweighed poorly tacked on content that most well-informed consumers could avoid.

Sounds familiar? Replace 'Expansion Paks' with 'DLC' and you've got this gaming generation in the last paragraph (of course replacing names where necessary). However with the ease of digital distribution and the growing apathy towards proper game development in lieu for greater profit, we are seeing an ever increasing number of publishers/distributors pulling off shady practices, the cardinal sin in particular being cutting off content made during a game's development cycle and selling that as extra content. Day One DLC is the Devil's piss as it just means that developers willingly made their complete game incomplete by gating off content they know they have completed in order to make the extra twenty dollars or so.

I digressed a bit, but the point I'm trying to make is that DLC is not the inherent evil it's painted out to be. I for one am happy if a developer takes the time after they finish a game and release it to return to the game and add on new levels, characters, modes, etc etc that expands on the original game. I paid for good expansions in the past and I'll do so for good DLC.

PS: A note about Day One DLC... There will always be that 'Game of the Year Edition' that packs that in with almost every other content they'll eventually release so if you really want a game of that sort, practice patience maybe? Unless you're a reviewer of some sort or someone who works with games, you don't need to be up to date with that sort of thing. Only way to reduce bad DLC like that is to not partake in it at all.

Re: Review: The Keep (3DS eShop)

onery

Finished it and quite agree with the melee/spell system mentioned in the review. 'Course, I did opt to pump my intelligence and go for a mage like character so I don't know if pumping strength would make melee combat more bearable since I'm hitting once every 5-6 swings as a mage character. The spells on the other hand are rather diverse and have great utility for a game of this length. Overall a fun dungeon romp... Now bring Grimrock over too!