I love the artwork. The price is great. I'm probably gonna hold off until release though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I like the look and sound of this one! Definitely interested. I'd say a likely purchase.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I might risk the $20 to see how fun the game is. But competition is stiff as another said. I can actually play Magic: The Gathering Arena via Wine without having to pay anything up front. Maybe I will put money into it down the road since I really like it (probably my favorite card game), but I didn't have to pay to try it out.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This has been on the wish list for quite a while and survived my recent cleansing of said list. Cool news.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Nice. Going on wish list.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestI really like these kinds of games but i just can't get over the DLC spam in them. I gave crusader kings 2 a try since they gave out the base game for free, and almost instantly ran into content that was blocked behind a DLC. (i played a county as female and i wanted to introduce absolute cognative succession) Considering their games each cost 1k euros (if you dont want to get locked out of options by the DLCs) i just cant really bring myself to buy any of their games. It's a shame as CK2 had good addictive gameplay, and kind of intuitive too, it only took me 2 games to figure out the basics of everything.

I don't have experience with all of their games, but Stellaris is a great example of one that does not need any DLC to get 100 hours of fun play time. I started buying a DLC here and there after that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Lutris makes Wine gaming so much easier. I really wanted to see if it was possible to play some form of MTG on Linux recently. Lutris had a script available [External Link] and it worked. I was so happy about that. I like some other card games, but I think MTG is my favorite.

P.S. The one I used was 0.1.2133.772345.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Why would a game like Gunsport appeal to me as an exclusive title? How about something that requires expensive hardware to run.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Let's see how this Remote Play thing works out. Purchased.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: 14Usually when people speak in ultimatums, they're exaggerating due to a lazy mind or anger-fueled irrationality.

Needless to say, I disagree with you. But that's fine.

For the most part I would agree with you that absolutes rarely exist, and there's usually an exception or two to every statement one can make. I felt fairly comfortable generalizing in this particular instance though, and still do. The reason for this lies in the very effect the "Free"-to-Play model causes on game design, which makes these games bad by definition.

I will try to explain:

For a Buy-to-Play game, the game design focuses on delivering the best possible experience for the player. There are no secondary concerns for game design - the monetization has already happened.
For a "Free"-to-Play game, monetization has to happen DURING play, and AFTER giving the player access to it. The design no longer focuses on the best possible experience for the player, it focuses on motivating the player to pay up. Which for the F2P side of the industry is habitually done by intentionally making the game boring or tedious after a few hours of playing it, while giving players the opportunity to buy away these nag-mechanics with micro-transactions ("Don't want to wait 100 hours for this cooldown to expire? Just pay $10!").
In short, you can safely say that F2P games are universally designed to suck unless you pay up. It's how these games make you pay when you otherwise would have no reason to.

Now, you might say "But what about vanity and cosmetic items that have no effect on gameplay? Selling these don't make a game suck!"

Unfortunately, it does.

In a B2P game, cosmetic items are earned in-game, by PLAYING it. For many games, getting better-looking gear is the very essence of our motivation to play them in this first place. But with F2P games, you just BUY them. You can't earn the good-looking stuff in game, because it's moved to the cash-store. All you do is swipe your credit card and done! Your character looks great now. The only problem is that moving in-game rewards to a cash-store is that it kills in-game content, because your already great-looking character doesn't have to do any dungeon crawling to become great-looking. Cash-stores, even if cosmetic only, leave game designers with a lot less options to design rewarding and engaging content.

Maybe this helps you to understand why I made my absolute statement the way I did. There is simply no way to make a F2P game NOT suck, because the problem is in the business model itself.

I see your point. I'll even say that I generally agree. But there are exceptions, for me at least. For a CCG, I'm okay with mimicking the physical card game model and charging for booster packs. All board games and card games get repetitive until you add more content. That content costs professional time to create. I also think Dota 2 is completely fun without buying anything. Other than those, nothing else is coming to mind right now, thus why I generally agree.

View this comment - View article - View full comments