# New Soul Calibur has no multiplayer because it's "Pay-to-Win"



## Gahars (May 20, 2014)

Soul Calibur: Lost Swords is the most recent entry in the Soul Calibur franchise, released exclusively on the PS3. A F2P title, it has no multiplayer - rather unusual for the franchise and, you know, fighters in general.

Why is this?



> Q: Can you tell us a little bit about Lost Swords?
> 
> Masaaki Hoshino, Producer: So SoulCalibur: Lost Swords will be the first in the franchise to be a free-to-play model. Unlike previous installments of the franchise, this time around, we’re looking at a single-player experience where it’s built around customization and really molding the character to fit your play style.
> 
> ...


Siliconera
[prebreak]Continue Reading[/prebreak]





R.I.P. Soul Calibur


----------



## Plstic (May 20, 2014)

What a waste of a Soul Calibur game.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 20, 2014)

Congrats Namco, I won't be playing your shitty game


----------



## Clarky (May 20, 2014)

well, at least there honest


----------



## Naridar (May 20, 2014)

Admitting your game is pay-2-win... how low can you sink, really?


----------



## JPhantom (May 20, 2014)

agreed i aplaud their honesty still won't play the game though i don't play fighters


----------



## Terenigma (May 20, 2014)

So the next Soul calibur game has no multiplayer? Interesting. In related news, The next call of duty wont have guns. The next mario game wont allow jumping and the next zelda game wont have a world to explore, Link will just float around in space for 30hours.


----------



## TheCasketMan (May 20, 2014)

Did he actually say pay to win.  If so, atleast he was honest.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 20, 2014)

*>Make a fighting game, the epitome of competitive gaming*
*>Remove the competitive aspect*


----------



## gamefan5 (May 20, 2014)

Isn't the game released though?


----------



## Ryukouki (May 20, 2014)

What . why.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 20, 2014)

Good grief, when I saw the headline said "pay to win," I thought it was just a more honest version of the laced up mumbo jumbo they said. I'm shocked they actually admitted that it was  pay to win.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 20, 2014)

gamefan5 said:


> Isn't the game released though?


 
Yeah, its been on the PSN store for a while now. It got absolutely horrid reviews, something like 25% or so from what I've read.


----------



## Dork (May 20, 2014)

The game is such shit. It is just free-to-play Soulcalibur V.

Still not as bad as Soulcalibur Unbreakable Soul, which just turned out to be some shit card game that borrowed art assets from all the other soulcalibur games.


----------



## frogboy (May 20, 2014)

April Fools... pls ;n;


----------



## gamefan5 (May 20, 2014)

Lol reason I asked was because the OP made it seem like it was not. XD
EDIT1: In fact, at the time I made this edit, the mistake is still present in front page. XD

EDIT2: Thank you for correcting, Gahars


----------



## GHANMI (May 20, 2014)

It's no longer free-to-pla.. *ahem* pay-to-win is getting in the way of the core features of the game (multiplayer here).
Now it's the core features, and arguably the game itself (judging from the card game trend) getting in the way of the pay-to-win part.


----------



## Qtis (May 20, 2014)

gamefan5 said:


> Lol reason I asked was because the OP made it seem like it was not. XD
> In fact, at the time I made this edit, the mistake is still present in front page. XD


 
The front page takes a few moments to update if the OP of threads is updated.

Sad to see a series go so far away from its roots. Not really my cup of tea, but sure as hell wouldn't want this to happen to other great games and genres..


----------



## Steena (May 20, 2014)

The sad part is that this game will sell more than zero copies. Someone, somewhere, is going to buy it and probably even defend its design choice.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 20, 2014)

Steena said:


> The sad part is that this game will sell more than zero copies. Someone, somewhere, is going to buy it and probably even defend its design choice.


 
Except it's free-to-play, already released, and already has like 1+ million downloads (according to Namco).


----------



## Hanafuda (May 20, 2014)

They should just make all games like this. Pay enough money, and Mario floats effortlessly past all obstacles and his body projects a constant spherical hellfire of bob-ombs, fireballs, and razor blades, destroying all enemies in his path.

Hey, look, I beat the game!

Thanks for playing!


.


----------



## Steena (May 20, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Except it's free-to-play, already released, and already has like 1+ million downloads (according to Namco).


Ah, thanks for the correction. Sad to hear it got one million downloads. That's way more than I expected for a system exclusive.



Hanafuda said:


> They should just make all games like this. Pay enough money, and Mario floats effortlessly past all obstacles and his body projects a constant spherical hellfire of bob-ombs, fireballs, and razor blades, destroying all enemies in his path.
> 
> Hey, look, I beat the game!
> 
> ...


Didn't a nintendo investor suggest that people should play a premium to make mario jump higher in the past? Or something along those lines.


----------



## Deleted User (May 20, 2014)

I don't believe a word of siliconera articles.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 20, 2014)

Hanafuda said:


> They should just make all games like this. Pay enough money, and Mario floats effortlessly past all obstacles and his body projects a constant spherical hellfire of bob-ombs, fireballs, and razor blades, destroying all enemies in his path.
> 
> Hey, look, I beat the game!
> 
> ...


 
A similar suggestion has already been made, actually.


----------



## KingVamp (May 20, 2014)

Steena said:


> Didn't a nintendo investor suggest that people should play a premium to make mario jump higher in the past? Or something along those lines.


 


xwatchmanx said:


> A similar suggestion has already been made, actually.


 
So mess up and this is what some people want.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 20, 2014)

who cares? if its not online it can be pay to win as much as they like.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (May 20, 2014)

Saying this is horseshit would be the understatement of the year.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2014)

Namco releases new iteration of SC series
New iteration doesn't have multiplayer mode
Wat.

People want to buy this BS...why?  A turd polished in gold is still a turd.


----------



## Steena (May 20, 2014)

Clydefrosch said:


> who cares? if its not online it can be pay to win as much as they like.


I'm not sure you would like it if your favourite singleplayer games suddenly adopted a pay to win system. Being online or not doesn't change the fact that the pay-to-win model affects how elements of the game are deployed, such as progression, padding, repetition.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2014)

Isn't the idea of getting better/competing a means of winning? No wait, thanks to DLC, we don't to try and get better, we can just pay our way to win now! No more competition!


----------



## CathyRina (May 20, 2014)

It's like playing Smash Brothers without the Brothers.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 20, 2014)

Steena said:


> Didn't a nintendo investor suggest that people should play a premium to make mario jump higher in the past? Or something along those lines.


 




xwatchmanx said:


> A similar suggestion has already been made, actually.


 
I hope Iwata's reply was, "We did that already. It's called Luigi."


.


----------



## pokefloote (May 20, 2014)

This game is terrible. I don't know why I still have it installed, lol.
It's a single player SC, which is fine, I play SCII HD and nobody is ever online in that game anymore but I still enjoy it.
You can "hire" other players characters to use in fights when you're low in health for a few seconds to kick ass. That is about as MP as it gets here. (It's not at all)

this however, is plagued (was plagued? havent played it recently) with long loading times when it is connecting to their servers. And it would always come up with errors connecting. ALL. THE. TIME sending you back to the main menu for you to wait 10-30 seconds after each menu choice again. For a single player game, it's unacceptable.

tl;dr this shouldn't be considered a true SC game, they'll make a SCVI someday and everyone will try to forget this one.


edit: Should also add that it's like those shitty F2P mobile games where you need "gems" to fight, after you use the gems you can either pay or wait for them to refill over time. This is nothing new though, Tekken F2P does it too I believe.


----------



## tbgtbg (May 20, 2014)

Isn't the whole point of pay to win to raise your e-peen and lord it over the n00bs you pwn? How do you do that if you're only playing the computer and not other people?



Hanafuda said:


> They should just make all games like this. Pay enough money, and Mario floats effortlessly past all obstacles and his body projects a constant spherical hellfire of bob-ombs, fireballs, and razor blades, destroying all enemies in his path.
> 
> Hey, look, I beat the game!
> 
> ...



So basically make the Super Guide a paid add on?


----------



## Kikirini (May 20, 2014)

I think what's worse than this game is the fact that there are people out there who happily "pay to win."


----------



## Mariko (May 20, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Except it's free-to-play, already released, and already has like 1+ million downloads (according to Namco).



I downloaded it too. I even participated in the Japanese beta, but I haven't really played it, since it's essentially SCV, sans fun. I bet that's the story in most cases. People downloaded it, because it's free, realized it sucks sweaty gorilla balls, and never played it again. One million downloads, but how many active or semi active players? Namco won't tell, because it's two: Daishi Odashima and his weird ass neck.


----------



## Arras (May 20, 2014)

someone shitting on this game if you need to see it in "action"  (aka Sonic 06-level loading screens)


----------



## GHANMI (May 20, 2014)

Steena said:


> Didn't a nintendo investor suggest that people should play a premium to make mario jump higher in the past? Or something along those lines.


 

He actually suggested Mario's jump becoming_* lower*_, so that jumping on enemies and obstacles becomes annoying/not possible, as an "incentive" to buy a 0.99$ jump powerup for that specific level.
Or something.
Even when they are making those suggestions, they are subconsciously always taking something away from the game to accomodate their pay-to-win shenanigans (sometimes the fun part isn't allowed literally, because it's "too much value" and should be instead locked behind paywalls. Scratch that, it should be a non-existent mirage behind paywall after paywall after paywall...)

At least that JoJo fighter of theirs that had microtransactions was boycotted in Japan and failed miserably to the point they aknowledged the issue being with the microtransactions (angrily, while saying they won't remove it but merely rework it, and that's it's here to stay with the eventual US version).


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 20, 2014)

I'm still waiting for Ridge Racer: Driftopia on PS3, Namco.


----------



## flo (May 20, 2014)

This is a free game and just an intermediate of the next gen Soul Calibur .


----------



## nl255 (May 20, 2014)

Well that would be an interesting challenge for TASers once rpcs3 is capable of running it at full speed.  Try to beat the game on the hardest difficulty without glitches and without DLC.  I wonder if it is possible to do that even with tool assistance.  Probably not as that would defeat the entire purpose of pay to win.


----------



## 3bbb7 (May 20, 2014)

this was the saddest excuse they could've made.
Really?
Why not implement micro transactions that are only for aesthetics? Keep all the unfair stuff out. People will still buy those, and you'll still be making money.

I really like the soul caliber games, but this is definitely a skip. It's 2014, we're on the eighth generation of gaming, and you're releasing a fighting game without multiplayer... come on now


----------



## Abcdfv (May 20, 2014)

Pay to win fighting game? HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
Off to play singleplayer. hope it has an ok "story"


----------



## Sakitoshi (May 20, 2014)

at least they are being innovative releasing a fighting game without versus mode


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2014)

I guess you could say no one expected Namco to make a game of this Calibur


----------



## Mario92 (May 20, 2014)

Woah woah wait a sec, did I read that right? They are admitting themselves that they were doing pay-to-win from the start? Is there actually any other dev that actually said themselves they have pay-to-win model in game or were designing using one? 

Also haven't gotten into idea single player games having free-to-play model at any form - only shareware kind of stuff seems to work (test it, pay for rest). Just sounds like you are paying to get more fun out of the game. With multiplayer games it makes sense so you can buy shiny gold armor to show off to friends who can play because the game's free.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 21, 2014)

Hanafuda said:


> They should just make all games like this. Pay enough money, and Mario floats effortlessly past all obstacles and his body projects a constant spherical hellfire of bob-ombs, fireballs, and razor blades, destroying all enemies in his path.
> 
> Hey, look, I beat the game!
> 
> ...



I recall some articles a while back where they were considering autoplay modes.
Edit. It already came to pass
http://nintendo.wikia.com/wiki/Super_Guide


----------



## HBK (May 21, 2014)

Now if only the tons of iPhone/Android devs admitted their crappy ripoff of Angry Birds/Flappy Bird/CoC is a pay to win model.....

This is nothing new.


----------



## Hells Malice (May 21, 2014)

Myself after playing Soul Calibur V:  "Well at least they couldn't possibly make this ANY worse."
...
Ta-daaaaaa.

Is Namco being taught by fucking Lionhead? What a joke.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 21, 2014)

Naridar said:


> Admitting your game is pay-2-win... how low can you sink, really?



Still better than Capcom with their Street Fighter games...


----------



## Gahars (May 21, 2014)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Still better than Capcom with their Street Fighter games...


 

No it isn't.

Dumb DLC and some rereleases vs. No multiplayer and explicit "Pay-to-Win" pricing model

...You can't even compare them.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 21, 2014)

Gahars said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> Dumb DLC and some rereleases vs. No multiplayer and explicit "Pay-to-Win" pricing model
> 
> ...You can't even compare them.



Im talking with them actually being upfront about it.


----------



## gamefan5 (May 21, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> I guess you could say no one expected Namco to make a game of this Calibur


If it was Gahars, it would have gotten at least one like LOL


----------



## Gahars (May 21, 2014)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Im talking with them actually being upfront about it.


 
I don't know, I'd take shady Capcom engaging in minor shenanigans over honest Namco doing the horizontal graveyard smash with the franchise any day of the week. Honesty doesn't make it any better.



gamefan5 said:


> If it was Gahars, it would have gotten at least one like LOL


 

The Pungeon Keepers' Guild is unkind to outsiders. You take our wages or you take nothing.


----------



## Reploid (May 21, 2014)

And I'm still waiting for SCV story DLC. Silly right?


----------



## the_randomizer (May 21, 2014)

gamefan5 said:


> If it was Gahars, it would have gotten at least one like LOL


 

Well, I was waiting for him to do it, sadly, he never did....


----------



## Deboog (May 21, 2014)

Naridar said:


> Admitting your game is pay-2-win... how low can you sink, really?


 
Lying about being pay to win?


----------



## Vipera (May 21, 2014)




----------



## jonesman99 (May 21, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> *>Make a fighting game, the epitome of competitive gaming*
> *>Remove the competitive aspect*


 
I swear, your avatar gets worse with each story like this that comes out. lol

Seriously, Namco? You put so much time and effort into other companies franchises, that you fcuk over your own in the process? Then again, TTT2 and SC5 didn't do so well I heard, but this is almost like the nail in the coffin. I hope this works out for them, or they are able to add in the online aspect later via update.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 21, 2014)

Jezus f***ing Christ. At first this was sort of a hoax site...like from theonion or something. But it isn't. And I cannot help but feel sad for all Namco employees whose voice was ignored while some management guys snorted too much unhealthy stuff and came up with this. 

*How can you freakin' ignore basic logic in these situations?!*


I'm not a fan of free-to-play but I understand it has its place. Pay-to-win is actually a nicely looking money scam or even extortion, so admitting it to be that way is bad enough in itself. But even then, I can understand that if people are having fun with it, I can't really forbid people to play it (though if this gets much worse, governments may have to intervene at some point).
...but removing one of the most basic needs of a fighting game in order to satisfy a model nobody even asked for in the first place? That's just sad. That very argument (you don't want to go up against someone who pays more than you) should be a main reason NOT to go for free-to-play.

*sigh*

Perhaps the worst thing is that I don't even like fighting games to begin with. It's not that I hate them (I have played a couple), but they're just not my favorite. But this sort of thing shouldn't be happening. These sorts of practices not only ruin a well-known franchise but also damage the industry as a whole. Those stories where a child spends a gazillion bucks on items in a free-to-play game may be the exception now, but with this sort of game development, this is only going to get more common. And if it doesn't stop, there may be game rehab clinics in the future where addicted gamers admit they fell in the same trap heroine junkies fell into.
This may sound absurd, but I'm serious about it. In the long run, this may damage our gaming culture far more than any violent game will ever do...


----------



## Arras (May 21, 2014)

Taleweaver said:


> Jezus f***ing Christ. At first this was sort of a hoax site...like from theonion or something. But it isn't. And I cannot help but feel sad for all Namco employees whose voice was ignored while some management guys snorted too much unhealthy stuff and came up with this.
> 
> *How can you freakin' ignore basic logic in these situations?!*
> 
> ...


The parts not even mentioned: The game has always online DRM and loading a 5 second match (because it's that easy at first - I have no doubt that eventually it will become impossible without paying) takes about a minute. Also, the game uses points to let you play that slowly replenish over 96 minutes. This means you can play for about 20 minutes (half of which is load times) and then you have to wait 1.5 hours if you want to play again, or pay 2 bucks. And there's a massive load time every time you select an option in the menu, want to go back, or well, for basically everything.


----------



## Black-Ice (May 21, 2014)

Soul Calibur died after III

In IV they got rid off all the good offline modes in exchange for a shit online mode
In V they got rid of all the good characters and replaced them with shittier palette swaps with the same fight style or just deleted them all together.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 21, 2014)

Arras said:


> The parts not even mentioned: The game has always online DRM and loading a 5 second match (because it's that easy at first - I have no doubt that eventually it will become impossible without paying) takes about a minute. Also, the game uses points to let you play that slowly replenish over 96 minutes. This means you can play for about 20 minutes (half of which is load times) and then you have to wait 1.5 hours if you want to play again, or pay 2 bucks. And there's a massive load time every time you select an option in the menu, want to go back, or well, for basically everything.


Hmm...in this case, I actually consider this good news. It would be much worse if the actual game was otherwise awesome in every other way possible. Now it's 'just' going to crash and burn.

(though it certainly deserves a double facepalm: not only is a previously multiplayer-focussed game single player only...it is single player only while having an online requirement)


----------



## lokomelo (May 21, 2014)

Lets be honest, Almost every game that features DLC has pay to win DLC, or Barbie DLC*. On a racing game, a new DLC car is a kind of pay to win, you pay, use the car that usually is better than stock ones, on a shooter, a gun pack is pay to win, because you kill other players with good DLC guns, and this goes with almost every kind of game.

*Barbie DLC: are DLC that you dress you character just like little girls do with their barbies, usually it is easy to dev, and a lot of barbie players love.


----------



## MegaV2 (May 21, 2014)

This is all thanks to mobile gaming cancer. Just like most mobile games nowadays, this game shouldn't be called a game. It's basically just a greedy peasant that keeps asking for money and you have to give him if you want to do anything.


----------



## lokomelo (May 21, 2014)

MegaV2 said:


> This is all thanks to mobile gaming cancer. Just like most mobile games nowadays, this game shouldn't be called a game. It's basically just a greedy peasant that keeps asking for money and you have to give him if you want to do anything.


the game in question is a PS3 game. Before the "mobile gaming" era, games like The Sims series were already selling DLC, even day one DLC...


----------



## Arras (May 21, 2014)

lokomelo said:


> the game in question is a PS3 game. Before the "mobile gaming" era, games like The Sims series were already selling DLC, even day one DLC...


You do realize this is above and beyond DLC? Games like these strive to make the game near untolerable (usually with wait times or inane grinding) unless you pay for it. With DLC you usually get a fully functional game at least, even if you don't buy the DLC. Microtransactions, usually not so much.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 21, 2014)

lokomelo said:


> the game in question is a PS3 game. Before the "mobile gaming" era, games like The Sims series were already selling DLC, even day one DLC...


 

The only "Sims" game notorious for DLC is The Sims 3. The Sims 2 was DLC-less I'm rather sure, and even without DLC it was a pretty full-featured game.

Also stop with this whole "muh real gaming" bullshit. It's a fucking hobby, most of which you realize is shit. It certainly isn't as prestigious as film or music.

I used to defend gaming as "art" but I find it harder and harder when I realize how fucking awful the fanbase is. It's so exclusionary, so introverted, and incredibly full of themselves. I mean there's movie snobs and music snobs but they're not nearly as prevalent as gaming snobs.


----------



## Arras (May 21, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> The only "Sims" game notorious for DLC is The Sims 3. The Sims 2 was DLC-less I'm rather sure, and even without DLC it was a pretty full-featured game.
> 
> Also stop with this whole "muh real gaming" bullshit. It's a fucking hobby, most of which you realize is shit. It certainly isn't as prestigious as film or music.
> 
> I used to defend gaming as "art" but I find it harder and harder when I realize how fucking awful the fanbase is. It's so exclusionary, so introverted, and incredibly full of themselves. I mean there's movie snobs and music snobs but they're not nearly as prevalent as gaming snobs.


This is like watching a movie and being forced to take an hour break every 20 minutes unless you pay extra each time though. It's rather ridiculous.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 21, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Also stop with this whole "muh real gaming" bullshit. It's a fucking hobby, most of which you realize is shit. It certainly isn't as prestigious as film or music.
> 
> I used to defend gaming as "art" but I find it harder and harder when I realize how fucking awful the fanbase is. It's so exclusionary, so introverted, and incredibly full of themselves. I mean there's movie snobs and music snobs but they're not nearly as prevalent as gaming snobs.


 
I honestly think it only seems that way because the gaming community has a much larger online presence than film, music, and many other communities. Seriously, how many GBAtemp-like forums do you see out there for movies? How many dedicated news sites do you see out there for music? A number I'm sure, but I doubt there's as much of either as there are gaming sites, forums, etc.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I've rarely _ever_ met gamers in real life who were as exclusionary, introverted, or full of themselves as the supposed majority is online. Everything is going to seem one-sided when you make an unbalanced comparison between something seen a lot online (where you'll see people's opinion firsthand much more often), and something not seen as much online.

Also, seriously, stop with this, "the fanbase is shit, therefore the object is shit/isn't that good," logic of yours. This certainly isn't the first time you've said something like that about a fanbase, and it's totally shit logic. Just because you perceive a fanbase as awful doesn't mean the object of that fanbase is bad or less legitimate of "art status."


----------



## FAST6191 (May 21, 2014)

Arras said:


> This is like watching a movie and being forced to take an hour break every 20 minutes unless you pay extra each time though. It's rather ridiculous.



Is that not basically the TV model?


----------



## Arras (May 21, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> Is that not basically the TV model?


It is, but with ten times longer ad blocks.


----------



## Black-Ice (May 21, 2014)

The gaming fanbase seems the most retarded because its the fanbase that's most prevalent on the internet. 



xwatchmanx said:


> I can't speak for everyone else, but I've rarely _ever_ met gamers in real life who were as exclusionary, introverted, or full of themselves as the supposed majority is online. Everything is going to seem one-sided when you make an unbalanced comparison between something seen mostly online, and something seen mostly offline.


 
200% this.
The real villain here is the internet.
The Internet stupid.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 21, 2014)

Black-Ice said:


> The gaming fanbase seems the most retarded because its the fanbase that's most prevalent on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I forgot to specify in my original post that the biggest difference is that you'll personally see opinions voiced on the internet from hundreds of people daily, as opposed to hearing the opinions of maybe a few dozen at most daily in real life. Not to mention that people are much less afraid to be dicks about their opinions online. Couple that with gaming being a much more online-focused community than music or movies, and it becomes apparent why it's stupid to try to compare their fanbases... and even stupider to question their "art status" based on their fanbases regardless.


----------



## Dueler (May 22, 2014)

I quite enjoyed the single player expedition in Soul Blade.
If they did something like that id be game for it but from what I've seen this is just crap.
I'm sick of developers looking at numbers like 1M downloads as if its a good indicator of popularity.
The whole Pay-To-Win thing really needs to die hard and fast, it doesn't serve anyone.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (May 22, 2014)

When will these people learn that pay to win isn't what gamers with brains want. If they're just after money they should make a cheap 2d ad-supported mobile game.


----------



## CathyRina (May 23, 2014)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


> When will these people learn that pay to win isn't what gamers with brains want. If they're just after money they should make a cheap 2d ad-supported mobile game.


 
Probably never. Even though games like Phantasy star online 2 and League of legends show that Free to play & pay models work if they are done right.


----------



## Delta517 (May 23, 2014)

Terenigma said:


> So the next Soul calibur game has no multiplayer? Interesting. In related news, The next call of duty wont have guns. The next mario game wont allow jumping and the next zelda game wont have a world to explore, Link will just float around in space for 30hours.


 
Unless you pay, of course


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 23, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Probably never. Even though games like Phantasy star online 2 and League of legends show that Free to play & pay models work if they are done right.


 

League of Legends is a real shit free to play model. Having to buy characters which could just be better or wait for them to "rotate" in is stupid. Not to mention skins give you buffs, so it's an edge over the competition you pay for. Dota 2, on the other hand, has all the characters for free and the items you buy are just aesthetic, don't affect the gameplay, and you can earn through the game anyway.


----------



## CathyRina (May 23, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> League of Legends is a real shit free to play model. Having to buy characters which could just be better or wait for them to "rotate" in is stupid. Not to mention skins give you buffs, so it's an edge over the competition you pay for. Dota 2, on the other hand, has all the characters for free and the items you buy are just aesthetic, don't affect the gameplay, and you can earn through the game anyway.


 
the ability to buy Champions is completely optional and there are plenty good Champions that are purchasable after completing the tutorial level.
These "buffs" you talk about are hidden passives you wouldn't know about if nobody would tell you like 1 hp less lost from light attacks on skins with sunglasses and really 1 hp is very little to nothing. These buffs don't save your butt at all.
It's like you would argue with somebody about one cent.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 23, 2014)

If the pay model is "pay for the character you want or use the one we are offering this round, which is technically just as good as the others," then I can see that as being a great model, especially if combined.

On the skins changing something small. If it is truly trivial then maybe, however such things tend to stack and even a slight move is still a move and thus can be called out. However such things would hardly be the worst part of DOTA/MOBA design, indeed such games seem to be built around bad design even though they do not have to be. My favourite one was probably when some people were defending, to the hilt no less, the need to have the option to kill your own (hopefully near dead) towers to deny experience to your opponents.


----------



## Arras (May 23, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> the ability to buy Champions is completely optional and there are plenty good Champions that are purchasable after completing the tutorial level.
> These "buffs" you talk about are hidden passives you wouldn't know about if nobody would tell you like 1 hp less lost from light attacks on skins with sunglasses and really 1 hp is very little to nothing. These buffs don't save your butt at all.
> It's like you would argue with somebody about one cent.


Some skins are quite ridiculous. One of the Twisted Fate skins (the ghost one) makes his throwing cards near invisible. Nidalee has a skin that makes her Q spears near indistinguishable from autoattacks. The Rune system is shit too. You can either grind to unlock characters (which takes WAY too long) OR spend those grind points on runes that are basically REQUIRED if you want to play ranked. Not to mention that you can only have two of those pages (which takes forever to fill anyway) unless you pay MORE grind points. And buying champions is not optional. For one, if you don't you won't be able to choose characters you like and will just be stuck with ones you hate at times, and more importantly, you NEED to have bought 16 characters or so to play any draft pick mode (including ranked). IMO League's F2P model could be worse but it's far from good.


----------



## ilman (May 23, 2014)

Arras said:


> Some skins are quite ridiculous. One of the Twisted Fate skins (the ghost one) makes his throwing cards near invisible. Nidalee has a skin that makes her Q spears near indistinguishable from autoattacks. The Rune system is shit too. You can either grind to unlock characters (which takes WAY too long) OR spend those grind points on runes that are basically REQUIRED if you want to play ranked. Not to mention that you can only have two of those pages (which takes forever to fill anyway) unless you pay MORE grind points. And buying champions is not optional. For one, if you don't you won't be able to choose characters you like and will just be stuck with ones you hate at times, and more importantly, you NEED to have bought 16 characters or so to play any draft pick mode (including ranked). IMO League's F2P model could be worse but it's far from good.


 
By the time I got to level 30 and wanted to play Draft, I had more than 20 champs without spending a cent on LoL.
Runes aren't at all required for ranked. I played without runes up to Silver 3...
And, yes, some skins do give an upper-hand, but if a player has had enough games against such skins(or in other words have enough skill) he can easily see the enemy's projectiles. (and for the TF skin...I had no idea there was such...probably because nobody plays Twisted Treeline  )

I honestly think that the F2P system in games like LoL and TF2 is the reason they're so massively successful. That's because it're done incredibly right.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 23, 2014)

ilman said:


> By the time I got to level 30 and wanted to play Draft, I had more than 20 champs without spending a cent on LoL.
> Runes aren't at all required for ranked. I played without runes up to Silver 3...
> And, yes, some skins do give an upper-hand, but if a player has had enough games against such skins(or in other words have enough skill) he can easily see the enemy's projectiles. (and for the TF skin...I had no idea there was such...probably because nobody plays Twisted Treeline  )
> 
> I honestly think that the F2P system in games like LoL and TF2 is the reason they're so massively successful. That's because it're done incredibly right.


 

To be fair TF2 was already outrageously popular before the F2P update. And even then I'd say TF2's structure isn't perfect; buying weapons is in a way pay-to-win. The difference is that every weapon in TF2 is supposed to be "balanced", meaning every weapon has ups and downsides so it comes down to preference instead of something being purely better.

Also why is everyone jerking on LoL's F2P instead of Dota 2, as I mentioned? Dota 2's system is outright superior.


----------



## CathyRina (May 23, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Also why is everyone jerking on LoL's F2P instead of Dota 2, as I mentioned? Dota 2's system is outright superior.


 
Because more Lol Players play at the same time than there is Dota 2 players in total.
For a superior Payment system it seems to do something wrong somewhere else


----------



## Arras (May 23, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Because more Lol Players play at the same time than there is Dota 2 players in total.
> For a superior Payment system it seems to do something wrong somewhere else


All it "does wrong" is that it came years later and mechanics are a bit harder to get used to. It still has a ton of players. Why it's not as popular has nothing to do with the payment system.


----------



## Gahars (May 23, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> For a superior Payment system it seems to do something wrong somewhere else


 

Yeah - it demands skill.

:^)


----------



## CathyRina (May 23, 2014)

Gahars said:


> Yeah - it demands skill.
> 
> :^)


 
I haven't played LoL actively since Season 3 so I dunno.
But I remember my ass get kicked when I tried Dota 2 bot match.


----------

