Gotham City Impostors

1Dgaf wrote:

The reason they think they can list patches as DLC is because consumers are OK with them selling things like XP boost packs.

I don't think this is true at all. In fact I'd argue it's in their best interests to have a complete game if they want a dedicated fanbase that'll buy those boosters. While they're listing the patch notes as DLC, it's free DLC, so uh... kind of a patch anyway right? It's just odd that they've decided to call it DLC, probably for marketing reasons ("Look, we're just giving this away, aren't we nice?"). A little questionable, but hardly all that malicious.

Honestly, without buying a booster, this doesn't look like it'd take much more time to unlock things than say Call of Duty or Battlefield, the booster is just there to speed you along if you're invested in the game, it won't ruin the balance anymore than sitting down for a 6 hour session and getting ahead of everyone else the old fashioned way.

Plus this game is nearly 6 times cheaper than the aforementioned games here in Australia (probably more like 4 times in the US). At $15, I'm willing to overlook some attempts to make a bit more cash from dedicated fans.

So I guess I'm just pointing out that this is a good case of Hanlon's Razor. Lacking mute functions and dedicated servers? Stupid, but not malicious. It just means they'll have less of a player base to buy their boosters.

The fact they listed as DLC and tried to make a bonus out of it being free shows the mindset. At best - at best - they have somebody writing their releases that has no idea how to communicate with consumers properly.

I've said it before and I realise I sound like a one-trick pony, but it's not about how long it takes to unlock. It's not about cost. It's about being able to appraise the game's design on its merits. And it's really f*cking difficult to do that when the answer to questions is 'Because they'll make more money that way'.

Maybe an equivalent is a shop where salespeople are rewarded on customer satisfaction versus one where they're rewarded on sales. I think the sales model, not one that takes the customer into account in the long run, is bad for industry and for consumers.

I must try to let these things go without comment. I don't think I change any minds.

Sorry, one other thing, I don't think it's good policy for business to 'make more money from dedicated [customers]'. I see it all the time with companies offering new customers deals, but ignoring existing ones. I'm sure we all know how annoying that is; having been with a company for years, coming up to renew a service and being told that we can't get a good deal because we're not a new customer.

Double post for 200% accuracy.

1Dgaf wrote:

Sorry, one other thing, I don't think it's good policy for business to 'make more money from dedicated [customers]'.

So customers that use a service more shouldn't provide more revenue? Not that it always has to work that way, but it's a viable model to keep selling stuff to people who actually like what they are voluntarily buying.

I see it all the time with companies offering new customers deals, but ignoring existing ones. I'm sure we all know how annoying that is; having been with a company for years, coming up to renew a service and being told that we can't get a good deal because we're not a new customer.

Problem is that obtaining a new customer for the first time is MUCH more expensive than maintaining an existing, happy customer. So it's like the razor/razor blade model. Cheap up front to build a long term revenue stream.

Were they supposed to be the Sons of the Batman?

IMAGE(http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/6/61822/1794407-nobox_icon.png)

Feeank wrote:
BlackSabre wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

I'm imagining an entire team of people yelling "I'm Batman!" at each other and doing terrible Christian Bale impressions.

I don't see the problem :D

Keaton-ites will feel discriminated. Now try to imagine how bad it'll be for Kilmer-ites, Cloonies and AdamWest-ies.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who isn't Adam West is a wannabe, so this game has a big, big demographic.

This.... looks... quite... good.... mmmmm. Demo time me thinks.

Edit: Giantbomb Quicklook

Aside from being a rather poor port, it's a fun game at its core. I picked it up and have put a couple hours into it. It got a million times better when i learned how to mute people.

Higgledy wrote:

This.... looks... quite... good.... mmmmm. Demo time me thinks.

Edit: Giantbomb Quicklook

Giant Bomb's "Quick Looks" are inaccurately named. 40 minutes? Come on!

On topic, I'm interested but need to catch up with other titles first.

Trashie wrote:
Higgledy wrote:

This.... looks... quite... good.... mmmmm. Demo time me thinks.

Edit: Giantbomb Quicklook

Giant Bomb's "Quick Looks" are inaccurately named. 40 minutes? Come on!

On topic, I'm interested but need to catch up with other titles first.

I think I heard one of them say, "It's quick compared to playing the whole game."

I don't mind the longer 'quick' look but it's a tad annoying when they spend ten minutes chatting over start up menus.

Higgledy wrote:

I don't mind the longer 'quick' look but it's a tad annoying when they spend ten minutes chatting over start up menus.

I routinely just skip to the gameplay portions of their videos.

On a metered model, customers that use more will pay more. But with some services, customers that pay for usage upfront pay less.

My concern is that companies - say games companies whose titles have tournament or hardcore support - pushing to see how far they can go with turning that loyalty into money. For a non-game related industry, look at sports teams and cost of tickets, merchandise etc. In the UK team loyalty is exploited ruthlessly and fans are too emotionally attached - thus not logical - too see they're being taken advantage of. "I take my kids to matches because my father took me and my grandfather took him."
THis kind of 'loyalty' can transcend rational thought. I'd prefer it if companies didn't try to gain a commercial advantage by such means.

And if it costs a lot to acquire a new customer, companies should consider how lucky they are to have long term customers they can look after - and still treat well - for less cost.

Anyway, I played a couple of matches. I think it's got potential and I laughed at the dialogue and the cards. It's difficult for me, because I want to play another game like Shadowrun and this seems like it could offer some of the gameplay. But, quite aside from whether I want to support a publisher that's testing this DLC stuff, I'm concerned about the number of players and how their support for patches etc. will pan out.

1Dgaf wrote:

My concern is that companies - say games companies whose titles have tournament or hardcore support - pushing to see how far they can go with turning that loyalty into money. For a non-game related industry, look at sports teams and cost of tickets, merchandise etc. In the UK team loyalty is exploited ruthlessly and fans are too emotionally attached - thus not logical - too see they're being taken advantage of. "I take my kids to matches because my father took me and my grandfather took him."
THis kind of 'loyalty' can transcend rational thought. I'd prefer it if companies didn't try to gain a commercial advantage by such means.

This pretty much already exists in the MMO space. You can argue whether that's a good or a bad thing, but this reality isn't something yet to arrive, it's here right now.

I think this is a case where the market will decide what it's willing to put up with, if companies go too far with the nickel and diming, customers will stop buying their products.

I gave up on MMOs years ago. I remember thinking how cheap it was to have 'fast travel' by flight WoW take this winding route, presumably just to eat into one's subscription time. Not the only reason I stopped, but a contributing one.

1Dgaf wrote:

Redwing,

The reason they think they can list patches as DLC is because consumers are OK with them selling things like XP boost packs.

I had this conversation in the... I think it was the Super Street Fighter IV thread. Go and have a look for a back and forth between me and ahrezmehndi.

Yeah, that was an epic debate of extremely civil proportions.

I came here to gauge interest too, but it sounds like something to pass on. Oh well, the concept was good, wish it had turned out better.

1Dgaf wrote:

I gave up on MMOs years ago. I remember thinking how cheap it was to have 'fast travel' by flight WoW take this winding route, presumably just to eat into one's subscription time. Not the only reason I stopped, but a contributing one.

So you're voting with your wallet and not buying into a system that supports those practices, that's fine. I tend not to see the MMO space as cynically as that, but sure, they want to make money off you and will skew the experience towards that as much as is reasonable, and I don't blame them for it in the slightest. If they take it too far, people will move on to competing, cheaper MMOs if the cost exceeds what they're getting out of the game.

I see Gotham City impostors the same way, it's just more granular, instead of pay or miss out, there's a middle ground. If people want to pay more, they're welcome to, if they're happy going at a slower pace, they don't need to pay any more than the $15 dollar entry fee. I really don't see what the big problem with this is.

Redwing wrote:

I really don't see what the big problem with this is.

Give it a couple of years.

1Dgaf wrote:
Redwing wrote:

I really don't see what the big problem with this is.

Give it a couple of years.

Then a lot of these titles will be free to play. I really think this one would have done better in it's PC version to do that. Like TF2.

As long as stuff unlocks in the game via gameplay, I really don't have a problem with allowing people to unlock stuff with money. Time's valuable, and if you just want to buy instead of grind, I personally don't care unless the grind out the XP times are crazy unfair.

1Dgaf wrote:
Redwing wrote:

I really don't see what the big problem with this is.

Give it a couple of years.

I think this particular slippery slope, like many, doesn't exist. Maybe the developers/publishers will push too hard and do something stupid one day, and we'll see a batch of games with ridiculous DLC/optional purchases or some other godawful thing. And what will happen then is no one will buy the games, and the very next year it'll be back to square one.

I think the Double Fine thread indicates that gamers are more than willing to reward developers who show the right attitude.

I haven't played the full game, but the eurogamer review suggests the unlock times are on the wrong side of enjoyable, perhaps as a test to see how willing people are to pay when faced with a grind.

Note that it's stuff affecting gameplay that I dont like people paying for. If they want to pay to skip the grind for cosmetic stuff, it's harder to mount an argument.

1Dgaf wrote:

I haven't played the full game, but the eurogamer review suggests the unlock times are on the wrong side of enjoyable, perhaps as a test to see how willing people are to pay when faced with a grind.

Note that it's stuff affecting gameplay that I dont like people paying for. If they want to pay to skip the grind for cosmetic stuff, it's harder to mount an argument.

For what it's worth, I've got 3 hours in the game and have already gotten 2 custom class slots as well as 2 primary weapon unlocks (among others seconday unlocks). I don't think that is necessarily on the wrong side of enjoyable.

1Dgaf wrote:

I haven't played the full game, but the eurogamer review suggests the unlock times are on the wrong side of enjoyable, perhaps as a test to see how willing people are to pay when faced with a grind.

I think this is where our disagreement stems from, where you see an insidious test to see how far consumers can be pushed, I see a problem of balance that can be fixed if necessary. I'm sure XP/unlock rates can be a tough thing to balance properly. Now if everyone universally acknowledges that it take way too long, and they don't fix it, then perhaps you're more correct. But once again, if that's the case... people leave the game, problem solved.

1Dgaf wrote:

Note that it's stuff affecting gameplay that I dont like people paying for. If they want to pay to skip the grind for cosmetic stuff, it's harder to mount an argument.

If your concern is balance, the boosters don't affect gameplay, nothing can be bought that will make you stronger, it will only speed your progress, progress you would have made anyway if you decided you didn't really need to sleep/go to work/feed the baby etc.

If your concern is the morality of charging for it in the first place, well, don't buy the boosters. Choice is never a bad thing. Especially for people who may be too busy to grind a game, but have the disposable income to speed things along.

Lucky Wilbury wrote:

For what it's worth, I've got 3 hours in the game and have already gotten 2 custom class slots as well as 2 primary weapon unlocks (among others seconday unlocks). I don't think that is necessarily on the wrong side of enjoyable.

That's what I've seen online. I've not really heard anybody saying they weren't getting stuff unlocked. Also, a lot of the microtransactions are for cosmetic stuff.

Here is the list of stuff you can buy. I don't see any guns or real gameplay purchases, but I do know you can buy booster XP time (similar to the Mountain Dew CoD stuff).

I just want to play a game where I can be comfortable that a decision was made because it was best for the gameplay.

I was ready to click the "Buy" button on Steam and I noticed their warning about GFWL. Does this thing use GFWL? If it does it pretty much ensures I am not going to play it.

Hey Impostors:

I got a code (Xbox360) for some free in-game stuff. I have no plans to get this, so first to PM me gets it.

PyromanFO wrote:

I was ready to click the "Buy" button on Steam and I noticed their warning about GFWL. Does this thing use GFWL? If it does it pretty much ensures I am not going to play it.

unfortunately, yes it does.

I think the Giant Bomb also warned that the ATI card in their office were having a big framerate issue on the PC version. Nvidia seemed fine with them.

So I'm holding out to see if the PC version has any traction.