Single player games like assassins creed are a overall low value for the $60, compared to the dollar-per-hour equivalent of multiplayer games.
Do they cost more? Yes, but any single player game's value is limited by how much "true game time" value it gives, which is usually less that of most multiplayer games. I'm sure your aware that a single-player FPS usually has a run through time of 12 hours on the high side, and with re-playability, that runs into somewhere under 20 or 40 hours. Compared to hundreds in good multiplayer games
It really depends I suppose. I've bought tons of MP games that I've sunk no time into because they're just not that engaging. Not every game gets CS:S or KF levels of dedicated play time. So I'm not comfortable agreeing with your statement. It depends on the gamer and whether that gamer attaches to a game. There's some SP games I've put far, far more time into than a MP game. KF honestly probably ranks at my top next to....BF2.
So I don't necessarily agree that MP games are guaranteed to get you hundreds of hours of gameplay vs. a SP game. Both kinds of games make the promise. In that sense I think the overall evaluation of sp/mp vis-a-vis cost/value can be a wash because it becomes very subjective.
But using the AAA FPS titles as a base, of what usually amounts to a $60+$60(DLC) or $60+$30(DLC) cost/benefit calculation, the combination single-player/multiplayer games are usually a worse value than a straight $60+$0 multiplayer game.
Again, I'm going to have to disagree. Taking Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, for example, I probably put ~60 hours into the SP alone, because I like to take my time and faff around a lot in those kinds of games. I didn't even bother with MP. But if I had, and found it to my liking? MP games always like to assume you're going to live in them. I certainly lived in BF2 to the tune of like 800 hours. Now though, that seems a lot rarer, especially as new MP games in a series release once every year or two. So I don't know if your assessment actually holds as a generality. Again, excusing types of players, taste etc....
Because the single player is generally just there to justify the occlusion of more multiplayer content, to be sold later, and therefor sell more content overall.
Crysis. Had as rich of a SP as anything I've seen in the FPS genre that included both modes. If I go outside of strictly FPS, I can easily think of more. Although I can't help but mentioning Dark Souls/Dark Souls 2 as a counter example too.
Full disclosure: I am a reclusive SP hermit who rarely does MP anymore. I played BF3 SP to the end. You sound as though you're from the other side, someone who does MP over SP. That's going to color our interpretations.
If you're looking at what a game should cost based on what the game costs, then you're coming at it from the perspective of a developer or publisher.
Not a consumer.
A consumer makes his decision of what to buy based on it's value, and this is generally based on how much good game time he gets out if it.
As a consumer of a product which has wildly varying themes, styles and genres, which costs more to get into than your average movie ticket, I think I'm seeing things as a consumer. When I buy any product, I ask "How much of the thing I'm getting is actually represented by the materials and labor to create it, how much is profit and how much is overhead to get it to me." If in my assessment, the first is a very small portion, an the last two are are disproportionately large, I push and ask if there's a product I could buy instead where a) someone isn't drastically marking it up and b) more of my money goes straight to the hands that created it.
I view video games through the same lens, and it's only gotten stronger in the last two decades as AAA video games have come to resemble Hollywood in how creating "bigger" experiences has come with an inflation in the cost of enjoying the medium. I remember the drama when "$50 for a console/AAA PC title" became "$60 for a console/AAA PC title." It hasn't yet happened again, instead it's gone the DLC/Season Pass route. Still. $60 just is now, the price tells yo nothing because great games can be sold for $60, and terrible games can be sold for $60. Which is why when a dev opts not to charge that, I'm relieved because I feel like I can actually make some sort of valuation decision, instead of being asked to compare all kinds of games of all kinds of genres at the highest possible price point. It's not as bad as like "Flappy Bird, all platforms, Retail $60, Special Collectors Edition $129." But it starts to feel that way when publishers will shovel out just about any old piece of crap for $60.
If you really enjoy KF2, you will get hundreds of hours of gameplay out of it.
If you really enjoy the next single-player FPS game that comes out, you will get 20-40 hours of game play out of it.
And as a consumer, that 40 hours isn't as good of a value as the hundreds from the KF2 game.
Obviously graphical fidelity comes into affect the price. Just as you'll pay more for a better game, you'll pay more for a better looking game. This make any indie game comparison moot.
Again. Very few people are saying they won't pay more. We're not talking about a simple binary question here.
And there's no guarantee I will love KF2 like I loved KF1. Familiarity breeds contempt, so on and so forth. I didn't put more than 40 or 50 hours into RO2, despite it being Tripwire and ostensibly being what I wanted. I enjoyed it! I just didn't fall in love with it. So. Why should I run out and agree to throw maximum dosh out there? If anything, my personal track record shows that straight up sequels tend to be less enjoyed and memorable than their predecessors, or that they go through cycles of awesomeness and mediocrity.
You don't need to be a breakout success to provide a good value to your customers, and make your shareholders to your company money. So I don't see how this is relevant.
I'd look at the last couple years of mergers and acquisitions before you say that. THQ published Dawn of War and not even that series' success could keep them from going under. In order to be more profitable than the year before, publishers go to increasing lengths to make it happen. Bigger, more bombastic games and hype, more DLC, faster turn over. In fact, that was what put the nail in the coffin of BF3 for me, was that only a year and a half after release DICE/EA were moving on to the next game. Things going on sale quickly if they're not a huge hit, big Steam catalog sales multiple times a year, are symptom of this trend.
So I do think how things sell in the market is relevant to the discussion. Because that environment all has an impact on the games that get made under these publishers. And the way the industry influences the games it produces sets up our comparisons to TWI. It's our frame of reference for comparing value vs. effort vs. motives vs. product.
Furthermore, sure, it's "ideal" for consumers to pay full price for a game in perpetuity, and it's bad if they wait. Especially if they wait for a review review, and the game is bad.
But neither is required.
What is best for both parties (producers and consumers) is the producer delivering a fun, addictive (meaning you play it a lot) and graphically adequate game for $60.
And that in perpetuity is what is in actuality, a realistically optimistic state of being for a game series, because it perpetuates the perpetuity of the cycle.
I don't disagree here. I'm just not sure I'm ready to make that bet on TWI for KF2, nor do I think it's a sure bet for them to take that gamble.
In a perfect world everything would be priced what its worth at the time.
But because there is no god who comes down and perfectly prices everything it's up to people to follow the reviews or reputable reviewers.
Be the change you want to be, they say. And so I don't buy stuff for AAA prices unless I'm very confident it's worth it, both in terms of the game and what message it sends to the creators. I don't want to validate poor and/or lazy design choices, poor business practices and nickel and diming, because to the people who get the money, at their most cynical, your objections are ultimately irrelevant if you bought the game anyways. TWI isn't guilty of any of these things in my opinion.
But based on my experiences with Kickstarters and watching "rock stars" there let the success go to their heads, and put out simple games with a couple million dollars worth of art, I'm wary.
There are times when your $60 gets you an amazing value and is a great deal. Those tend to become the breakout successes.
There are times when it bites you in the *** to spend $60 on a game. And when you do, it's your fault. No one put a gun to your head and told you to buy a game without looking at reviews first.
Which is why I'm arguing for a lower price. So players don't have to wait and see because they don't feel compromised buying it at that price, and it ends up being an even better value, which drives more sales, and gives TWI the kind of crazy success they deserve. You and I both seem to realize that $60 is somewhat of a gamble, for everyone involved. TWI if it scares players away, players if they have buyer's remorse.
Furthermore: Things are never really "priced what their worth," they are priced what people will realistically pay for them, with the assessment made of what is the largest amount of money that can be made considering the price and realistic volume of sales (and obviously the impact the price will have on volume.)
There's reality, and then there's profit. Having just watched someone about 100 feet away from me fail their Kickstarter by embarrassing amounts because they didn't understand this principle, I'm standing by my assertion. I'm fine dealing with the realities of economics. But that argument is a cloak for the actual decision about where to price it. When you've got a name and prior success, leveraging that into profit comes directly in to your pricing decisions. Even the decision to maybe under price it, as some thought KF was, is one of those decisions. I want them to price it at a level that both makes me feel like I'm not spending based on trust ("trust us it's worth $60" is a phrase I hate hearing reviewers use), and what I think will make them more money in the long run. I seem to recall them talking about how well KF's long tail has been, even outside of regular sales. The fact the price was accessible had a lot to do with that I believe. If they want to see the same thing with KF2, I think they need to do the same, just scaled up to the way the game looks and how successful they are.
First of all, the people at any company, including TWI, aren't going to suddenly turn crazy with dollar-symbols in their eyes just because they are successful.
You in a few hundred words said:
Your assuming that you know the motivations of this developer, TWI, or of producers in general. I can garentee you motivations are different from producer to producer, especially of art, as are motivations from person to person.
Sword cuts both ways. You can't take the position that you know what their motivations aren't when it benefits your argument, and then say I can't when it hurts mine. That is actually a large crux of our disagreements here. I distrust business. I am inherently skeptical people with a motivation to make a profit off of me, people that want and need my hype to make their thing happen. Businesses are there to sell you stuff, it's the mission. Plenty of good people run businesses that don't put profit first, they're comfortable with making "a" profit but not at their customer's additional expense. And TWI has generally seemed to be one of those businesses. But again, I'm not going to assume they're benevolent in their motivations or completely malign. I'm going to go with caution instead. If KF2 is as good as it is shaping up to be, I'll have fewer problems considering TWI the kind of dev house that deserves my unreserved confidence.
But there's two reasons I'm not doing that now:
1. I was there for RO2. There were things that were great, and there were things that were cause for concern. I don't want this to become a debate about RO2 so I won't get into those details. But I think it's worth mentioning their history for the good and the bad.
2. They've grown as a studio since the last game they released a game. Larger can be better. It can also change how a company operates. I'm waiting to see how they've handled it.
They way they've handled themselves to date has kept me around this long, and gotten me to buy their biggest two games for what they asked. How they handle themselves with KF2 will determine whether I'll gladly pay them big time dollars as opposed to indie dollars, or continue to be critical of the idea.
That's a "progressive"/marxist view of the world.
There are famous and rich celebrities who don't pay their gardeners, drive drunk and shop lift. Being financially successful doesn't change if they do that or if they don't do that. They do it, because those are the kind of people they are.
Setting aside your obvious stereotypes of me and the strawmen you're propping up, I disagree that success can't or doesn't change people, and leave it at that.
You mean that "game" of releasing at product at a market standardized, $60 begging price point?
Yalp.
They've already shown a revamped perk selection system that's far and away more in-depth than the previous title. There is a reason they showed us video of game play and not just screenshots.
Yeah, and I'll say that I really didn't expect a video when we got it. But "far and away more in-depth?" I dunno about that. Let me state it factually: they've added a number of new perks per class, and allowed you to pick from among them instead of automatically assigning them at each perk rank. They also added a couple new classes. And my honest assessment of said perks is "Adequate." The Support's re-fill is kind of a game changer, I love that. But some of the perks are essentially recycled from the last game, as are the ever ubiquitous "Do more X" perks like more damage, more healing, more ZED time, etc....Maybe you disagree and think this is a whole new ball game all around, I don't. It's a nice upgrade though.
Also, if you think that the game play in KF is narrowly constructed, I'd like to see exactly what the heck none-narrowly constructed game play looks like. You sourced Assassins Creed as a game worth $60, or at least brought up it's development cost.
Your going to tell me that game, with the same 5 side mission and NPC stalking isn't a narrowly constructed game? Almost any game can be described in a single sentence when you get right down to it.
Yes, I am, and here's why. You have a variety of things you can do in AC games that aren't being stuck in one level killing guys. It can vary its gameplay for running around killing guys, to exploring, to racing across roof tops, to traversing the country side, to hunting game, to doing boring mercantile crap to piloting a ship, to just simply enjoying the view and being immersed. (Something I'd think you can appreciate.) I know what you're accusing the game of and I don't necessarily disagree. But, in short, gameplay in later AC games is wide enough you can hang out in that game for a while and get a pretty well-rounded group of activities.
You don't "Hang out" in KF. You do a level, then you do a level, then you do a level, then you do a level. And in that level, you shoot guys, you go the trader. You shoot some guys, weld a door, go to the trader. You shoot some guys, heal your friend, go to the trader. Eventually you fight a boss. Probably you die.
I'm not criticizing KF for a lack of depth. I say all that as a fan not a detractor. But it is very focused gameplay. There are few distractions. There are no alternatives. It is not a big sprawling game with tons of scripting, quests, dialog trees, AI, puzzles, collectibles, vehicle sequences, a diablo-style loot system.....do I need to go on? There are a lot of things KF doesn't do, and that's GOOD. It focuses on its bread and butter: levels, monsters, weapons. So in terms of what it needs to meet its quota of being KF, it is smaller and narrow in scope than many games. Tight, focused designs are great. But they can get repetitious and they have the benefit of being cheaper to iterate on (for perhaps a sequel) than trying to do something truly new.
If you want a clearer example of what I mean by a narrowly-constructed game, go check out Darkest Dungeons and the format for gameplay there. You may find it interesting because it's deeply atmospheric and visual. But gameplay is very narrow (literally, narrow corridors in a dungeon.)
When developers of such narrowly constructed repackage older games, old tech, update the engine to do some new tricks, hire better professional artists, and sell a "whole new game", I get suspicious. And yes, I know that open games like AC and every Elder Scrolls game made are guilty of this. But again, when both are asking $60 for their work....my money is going to go on the larger game, usually.
So, let me get this straight, you think that Bioshock Infinite wasn't worth $60? Regardless of how masterfully that game was created? And the graphics? I think being at the top of of the Metacritic review board is a pretty good sign that it was worth the money. I know it's one of the best single player games I've played since Half-Life 2.
Honestly? Bioshock 1 was a more interesting game to me. I can't in good conscious say it wasn't worth $60 just because of how much love and attention I know was lavished on its looks and its atmosphere. Levine and his artists really did care about their work, as they generally always have about how Bioshock games present.
But in terms of
gameplay it was little more than BS1 with a remixed set of mechanics for gear, tears, and the Sky Hooks. (All of which were implemented in, shall we say, barest bones fashion.) Oh and its story was more pants on the head than ever before, emotional though it was. They even threw in some fake choices, just as icing on the cake.
BS:I to me exemplifies what AAA games are like these days. All fur coat and no knickers. The kind of thing you get hyped out of your mind for, are told it will be one for the ages, you preorder for $60, and you play your requisite 8 to 12 hours of gameplay and cinematic vistas, and you most likely will never play it again. I could have seen a movie, been moved in about the same ways (because to be honest, the gameplay of Bioshock games hasn't changed in 3 titles for the most part and it was the least interesting part of the game for me) and spent both less time and less money on it. I went back and replayed it not too long, got a dozen hours in or so. Once "the shine" of that intro wears off, the game quickly becomes dull. No one can beat those guys for making visuals you can't ignore. I can't say the same for the actual game design.
To be blunt, you appear jaded and don't care about graphics. You seem to prefer single player games regardless of graphics that only cost you $5-$10. You don't get much value out of amazing graphics. You prefer something cheaper as opposed to something better. .
You've got me pegged half right, as I alluded to above. See, I play everything. I play AAA games, and I play Dwarf Fortress. I *used* to play your average big MP games like BF, a little LoL, F2P games, the occasional MMO, etc... I play all kinds of indie games from roguelikes to 4x, RTS, driving games, just about everything except straight-laced sports games, dating sims and iPhone time wasters.
So I enjoy your Skyrims, Bioshocks, your [insert current modern war game here], your Farcrys, your Batmans, your GTAs, your Saints Rows, your Dark Souls, your Watch Dogs and what not. I appreciate this gen graphics. I didn't just build a $1500 system so I could play games that fit on a thumb drive on it. But I don't overvalue them and if you don't have much to show me besides graphics, or if the quality of graphics is in direct contrast to the depth or novelty of your gameplay, the balance remaining isn't going to be positive.
Between being hyped and what it seems like is most important to AAA developers, I find indie games by far more interesting both on paper and in practice. I feel better paying them for their games because I feel like I'm paying for their ideas, and not majorly for their artists, the same people who make the biggest checks in the film industry because so much of their work makes up the bulk of what people see in some movies. Or their voice actors. Or their famous lead designer's writing. With BS:I there was some gameplay they showed then threw away for some reason, and I feel like a lot of how that game turned out was due to "can't make it work and be cool, so just make it work."
And your argument for something that is better, which everyone likes, but not cheaper, is that "its not that much better to me, so it should be cheaper." But that's not the way it works
It is if enough people feel that way, and I think "jaded and disillusioned with AAA" describes a lot of the aging gamer demographic who has watched the industry evolve since the 80s or earlier. So yes, having watched about 80% of the life of modern gaming as it's evolved, when I feel graphics and small tweaks to the formula may not justify paying 200% what I paid for the last iteration,
I'm confident in saying it.
People always want a better deal than they should get. That's human nature.
Furthermore, the poll isn't representative of what people will actually pay.
Who exactly are you to be the arbiter of what's fair for the consumer? Isn't that up to the consumer to decide for themselves, and isn't that all well and nicely within economic theory for them to do so? The customer wants and fights for the best deal they can get because it's rational for them to do so. The producer wants and fights to make the most money they can, when it's all said and done. You're dismissing everyone's opinions as misguided, except your own. That's frustrating to say the least. I can understand where you're coming from. I'm not telling you that you want something you don't deserve.
See, this is what I originally reacted to that made me respond. You're mind reading the whole thing and acting like you know what people honestly are thinking, and everyone's lying to themselves because you somehow know both what everyone is thinking and exactly how satisfying the final game would be. So let's maybe stop talking about everyone else like we know, because neither of us do.
That said:
I'm damn sure that whatever the price is, virtually nobody who cares enough about the game to create an account and visit the forum on a regular basis, is going to skip out on the game because it costs them $10 or $20 more than what they selected as their polling option.
With this community you never know. Hell I'm tempted to wait for KF2 to go on sale just to spite you.
Particularly if the (trusted) reviews come out glowing, telling them that its easily worth the purchase price.
I trust the game media's interpretation about that as much as I do game developer's self-assessments of their game's awesomeness and "never before done"ness and replayability. I read reviews for information, not for determinations. Reviews with not enough information but plenty of determination don't get factored into my decision making.
And as for "they want TWI to prove they can make a game worth $60 before they'll pay it out" that should be everyone's attitude, including my own.
I think the difference here is, I've already decided KF2 is the game that could prove it, but I'm not going to put the cart before the horse. I know KF2 will prove they can make rad $60 games given the time, but I can't recommend they charge $60 for KF2 as proof of it.
You stated before than I hold indie titles as some kind of gifts from the gods ["You also act as though indies are immune to not giving players real value for their money."], and then when I counter that by asking for statements from myself as to when I've ever said that, you're reply is that it was inferred because when I talk about Electronic Arts or Ubisosft or Activision, I don't walk on eggshells?
Making a point, by blindly saying someone must believe X-Y-or-Z and that X-Y-or-Z is obviously false, is an inept way of making a "point," and not a way that I find to be an honest way of doing it.
What I wrote was at the very least not rude, I believe. But you took umbrage, and you've added a good dose of exaggeration on top of it.
Anyways, considering I haven't yet read you criticize TWI (just slightly disparage indie games when it's relevant to me liking them as a point of my stance) I'm still not sure I'm wrong.
If your going to say something obvious like "the sky is blue" or "I feel it's right to wait for a review before buying something" then yes, your going to get sarcastic comments. Here and everywhere else in life.
Whatever. You can have a point if it means that much to you. Neither of us should delude ourselves into thinking that we're being super insightful here.
Indeed, if you look at what TWI has delivered, versus the trash that has come, and is coming from well known garbage trucks of developers (EA, Ubi, and Activision, NOT THAT I THINK INDIE GAMES ARE GIFTS OF THE GODS JUST TO BE CLEAR!!!) then I think the assumption should be that the game will be worth the standard asking price as any other, and more than most.
That assumption, ought to be tempered with caution and that assumption re-diagnosed or confirmed once the reviews are released.
See, we're arguing from two mutually exclusive positions. You want it to roll with a $60 price tag. I don't. You're making arguments based on that assumption, arguing due diligence when it does release at that price. Whatever price tag it goes with, I'm going to read up on it. You're not telling me anything I'm not going to do. I actively believe a $60 price is a poor choice for several reasons. You're sort of talking to the side of me than to me with this. Like it's a foregone conclusion in your mind. The fact this poll was even created by TWI should tell you it's not.
I'm pretty sure only if you got the two accountants from both companies and they compared notes that anyone would really know, and even then, I don't think they'd agree with each other.
And I'm pretty sure a company directory could tell you factually that there are significant differences between a studio like TWI and a global developer/producer like EA or Ubisoft. There is almost no arguing they have vastly different warchests, assets, liabilities, expectations and overhead, except on the semantic level of "you don't have both accountant's balance sheets in hand." But if we want to drop that line of debate on the grounds of mutual ignorance, I'm fine with that.
Also, again what something costs is not the determining factor to what something is worth. Especially when dollar-per-hour of great game play is what you base your value upon.
You know much the material product in a soft drink from McDonalds actually costs? Cents on the dollar. Consumables aren't video games, but not asking if what something costs in relation to what you pay for it is smart, or fair or cost-effective, is ignorant and foolish, regardless of what you're buying. I'm not telling you anything you don't know. But maybe because I work in an industry where the cost of something is all important, is why I take it so seriously. Or maybe I just believe in holding businesses to a standard of value. When something feels overpriced, it probably is for you.
First of all, if I vehemently disagree with the options selected by users of a pole, that isn't going to be correctly interpretive of people's actions in the first place, I have a right to do so.
Secondly, I'm not being a jerk, but I have no problem with being sarcastic.
Thirdly, I've never stated that we're all special snowflakes. That's so absurd that re-reading my post I still have no idea where the hell you pulled that from.
As someone one who passionately and vehemently disagrees with stuff on a daily basis, you were being kind of a jerk about it. The only thing sarcasm does is help you feel satisfied about what you just said. It doesn't actually elevate the discussion. If you know that, and you do it anyways....you're being a jerk. I'm not saying this like I don't or haven't done it now or in the past. But believe me, I've made a deliberate and painstaking effort not to just respond in kind. And this has been an easier post to respond to.
Referring back to my own statement about OPINIONS (not assuptions) vs. Facts based on ARGUMENTS, that you've somehow managed to confuse within one response...
And what informs opinions in lieu of facts (or even in spite of them?)
That sounds astoundingly subjective, unless you just get tired of MP games faster than single player games.
I think you answered your own questions, it's highly subjective. Some people attach to a handful of games at a time, put hundreds of hours just into them. My roommate is like that with Diablo 3. Has put like 500 hours into it over the last year probably, I dunno. Gets a little butthurt that I don't seem to roll the same way and spread my time out over a lot of different games instead. There's so much to play! Who has time for just one or two games for months on end.
No one is telling you to spend your money on a game that just looks better.
And do you really think with the amount of time that has gone by since KF1, TWI said, "Look, this game is like 7 years old, lets release a sequel that just looks better, but changes absolutely nothing in terms of the game-play."
There is the adage that if it ain't broke don't fix it. And no, I honestly do not think this is a cash grab. They've demonstrated they're broadening gameplay where they can within KF's existing framework. If nothing else, the game is worth more just on the basis of the graphics, I can admit to that. But how much more....
But it is the same game with the a facelift that we've seen so far. And no one is unduly upset about that because hey, we all loved KF and all agree the graphics needed an upgrade. But it's that reality, in concert with TWI sort of going next level here, that has me cautious. Well could all very easily just go "omg greatest game ever" despite it only substantially being much more fun to look at it.
I've always liked TWI specifically because I felt like they kind of got my understanding of pricing. They knew when not to shoot too high, and when being kind of humble can pay dividends. This poll just kind of further reinforces my belief in that, the fact they made it. And it's the reason why I've put more than 20,000 words into debating you about it.
If KF2 blows my socks off, as far as I'm concerned TWI is justified in charging $60 (all other things being right and equal.) Not this time though. It's premature. They almost went $60 for RO2 and definitely made a lot of noise about competing at the AAA level. (Using the "it's a MP game first with hundreds of hours of MP fun" argument, btw, in thinking about their pricing.) And it didn't go so hot. They made a profit but they got a couple black eyes and the game never "took off." KF2 I think has a broader appeal than RO2 and it would be safer to do a $60 now, but KF2 is also a less ambitious game....and I think humility (and a price tag that reflects these points) is the right move to make.
But why are you assuming that the game-play hasn't been dramatically changed? Or that there is no new forms of content for the game, yet unrevealed?
Well TWI kinda learned to not promise big features until they could guarantee them from RO2. So in that sense, with EA potentially on the horizon, I suspect they're in feature lock mode right now. I don't think KF2 will do 8 months in EA like some games although I could be wrong.
So I don't really expect more features, at least not any large ones.
And exactly how different do you expect a sequel to be? And isn't part of the expectation of a sequel that it takes the previous game strengths, fine tunes them, and then adds new stuff?
Well, for one, I was/am really hoping that they formalize the objective mod maps from KF1 into its own gameplay mode. The maps where you have to get from A to B rather than just kill waves and visit the trader. Basically L4D done KF style (and it's tough as hell.) That's what I mean about the game growing vertically rather than horizontally (which is more perks, guns, enemies, that sort of thing.) There's other potential game mods that they could add (rather than say, change the core gameplay) to experiment with different ways to play the game. As another example, those big 64 player maps with thousands of ZED count? Even though the actual feasibility of gameplay was shaky, it was, to put it simply, amazing as ****. Like coop zombie survival horror on an epic scale. Put some dev work into that! Make that an alternative to bog standard survival. That's the kind of innovation that makes me go "Yes, I think this is an idea worth throwing money at."
All I'm saying an addictive multiplayer game that provides hundreds of hours of game-play and looks amazing is worth $60, which is half of what BF4, COD or Evolve really ask for.
And even compared to games that might have cost more development for some reason but provide less hours of game-play like Assassins Creed are not worth as much, in a definable doller-per-hour way.
Different strokes for different folks man. I've thrown...probably about $150 at the developer of Dwarf Fortress in the last 5 years, and he gives away his redonk massive SP game
for free. He's been developing it for 10 years or more, just on donations. What's viable and successful works, regardless of the price tag. I don't honestly think KF2 would like, get trashed as "not worth $60!" (although with that UI I don't doubt some knuckle head will say it) if it ran with that. I think the well of support for them and interest in KF2 is deep. But it's more, how much does TWI want to squeeze their fan base for profit? Could they make more profit by deliberately not doing that? I think they can and KF implies they can too.
