Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Destiny: Bungie's Rumored Rocky Final Year to Release

124»

Comments

  • Rastan1Rastan1 Member UncommonPosts: 68

    Hypemonster = 1

    You guys = 0

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Originally posted by Battlerock
    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy
    Originally posted by Battlerock
    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy
    Originally posted by Battlerock
    Originally posted by WillowFuxxy
    Originally posted by Battlerock

     

     

    This response and these questions are testimony to cultural differences.

    let me help you out and explain what he said.

    i add together two pharaphrased quotes.

    'console gamers will not like subscriptions, I am more like a console gamer in that I do not like tricky monentary schemes like DLC'..

     

    I am trying to understand this but my head is starting to explode

     

    it was interpreted that dlc is tricky, that is a misinterpretation, when one achieves an understanding of what they are purchasing, there are no "tricks" involved. I will say it more clearly, dlc is a scheme but dlc is not tricky. F2p is tricky because it's not static like dlc. I view it as a scheme though and Destiny is testimony to that, look at the core game, it has clearly been stripped of what should have been parts of the base game for the sake of dlc.

    So it appears you agree with me that console gamers would not have a problem with subscriptions then? that is the point I am trying to understand not dlc which I personally dont give two fucks about.

     

    I believe console culture does not accept sub fee with respect to individual games. The Playstation culture barely accepts a sub fee for psn, having an additional sub fee will push them over the edge.

    let me make sure I understand.

    console gamers are not for subs but they are for DLC? Yes

    I am not a console gamer so I am not aware of any game that is a sub on consoles let alone one that failed BECAUSE it was a sub. Sounds like a bit of a silly attitude to have (about subs that is) - see below

    I see some others have chimmed in here, but since you're not a console gamer, here is some background on top of what the others had mentioned.

    - Xbox live had a sub with the xbox 360 - they had and still have the most stable online service - users appreciated it and still do today

    - ps3 on the flip side also had an online service, it was arguably not as reliable as xbox live, but..... it was free no sub fee attached

    - as the others mentioned, there wasn't much available on console that had a sub fee attached and the games there were available were not that popular

    - today ps4 and xbox live both require sub fees and there is one game FFARR that has a sub fee attached, there is some cross platform going on with that game and it is Final Fantasy, it is the exception to the rules. However considering it is the exception, it still is not that popular on the console, the pc carriers the load for FFARR.

    - considering ESO - ESO is coming to console, console players are going to be loaded with expectations, psn users are already ticked about a sub for for online services, and xbox live users are like wtf? I already pay for online services, and both platforms have gamers who played and loved oblivion and skyrim to death. They will enter ESO and reject it immediately, it's got the single player rpg expectations with it and the attached sub fee, it will be rejected. ESO has tried to smooth this over by saying a sub to xbl or psn is not required, but come one who has an xbox one or ps4 and does not have the online service? That like of requirement is a piss poor attempt to push the blame to the consoles.

    - ESO would do exceptionally well however if marketed appropriately (ie remove all the skyrim expectations and let people know it's multiplayer and compromises are made in the name of multiplayer, benificial additions like having the ability to play with your friends now and meet new friends online and that the compromises are a result of that, but from those compromises we are getting the Elder Scrolls based game we can enjoy with our friends now and actively play together. Marketing this way will keep people playing after the first month.

    - Secondly they should make it buy to play and just launch dlc content once a year. If they did that, the game would have a nice healthy life on consoles especially considering the competition. Performing this action will get more people to purchase the game and keep them playing beyond the first month and make them excited to buy the dlc's.

    Oh, and let's not forget, talking about services, how many people bitched and complained that you had to have an active XBL or PS+ subscription in order to play any sort of multiplayer or group content, despite the fact that gamers were told long before console release that a subscription to their gaming services would be MANDATORY for many games. This is just the first time this was really enforced. 

     

    So, yeah, just more fodder for the "console gamers won't like subscriptions" argument.

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    After the pie-in-the-sky promises Bungie made about Destiny, we received a fairly generic shooter with co-op options and gear grind..

    Honestly, it makes much more sense to me that something like this DID happen during development, than DIDN'T.

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.