When games rely on online features and communities, can we really judge them too harshly at launch?
Aspyr Media Inc allegedly used a fan-made PC mod to add previously Xbox exclusive content to Star Wars Battlefront Classic Collection.
Aspyr if we sell hotcakes get that code from radical or something and create battlefield 3 please
I thought that was kind of obvious they were incorporating mods to piece this game together. Maybe not, but that's made me worried about one thing:
They also planned on adding the modded ending to KOTOR 2 but were legally blocked from doing so, even after they advertised that to help sell preorders for the game on Switch. Could the same happen with this? Any opponents have 3 weeks to bring down the hammer.
Street Fighter 5 launched in 2016, and is widely considered a misstep for the hugely popular franchise. This article explains why that is.
Every Street Fighter is called a misstep of the series since Street Fighter III..and even the Alpha games were not liked by everyone.
SF V had a miserable start but later it did a lot things actually better than SFIV and SF6.
SF6 is the first SF since SFII Turbo for that I did not buy at launch. And today, around 6 months after its launch I still have no motivation to buy it.
I've had every Street Fighter on launch since SFII on the SNES. SFV is definitely my least played of them all.
SF6 is very good. You should give it a second look.
Maybe in 2-3 years when there is a version that has characters I care for.
So far there is not one of the new characters I like..and my favourite 4 are not a part of it either. (Bison, Balrog, Sagat and Vega) + the whole hip hop style and the crappy music turned me totally off.
Looking forward a lot to Tekken 8.
SF4 vanilla was loved by most and and not considered a misstep. It wasn't until they went revision crazy that people started turning on Capcom.
Don't remember the criticques it got for the big hands and feet, the sometimes weird looking faces, the lame boss (Seth) and that so many characters were shotos and yup..the many new versions. Just every SF got its haters no matter how good it was.
It was criticized for the first trailers having an interesting art style with those ink splashes, but the real game had none of that and people felt cheated. And Capcom decided to add some of those effects in the game later because of the backlash. But I don't remember any other big complaints about it.
I grew out of fighting games, loved them as a kid but online you just get your ass kicked over and over leaving just the bare bones single player and also having no friends anymore who like fighting games either just makes me not want to buy or play them anymore.
Replies(1)
Street Fighter documentary 'Here Comes a New Challenger' is now available for all, following a successful crowd funding campaign.
In an alternate earth: " Are Publishers too quick to release unfinished games?"
Yeah, send me there.
lol?
LOL, this articler ain't too smart. Maybe you don't charge $60 for an Early Release/Beta then. You don't charge $60, then say, hey, it's not done yet, can you hold off on reviews for a bit?
Especially when tons of the main future content will cost you still. Characters and certain non-premium costumes can be obtained through Fight Money, but after the first 2 characters or so, it may end up being a grind fest. They keep mentioning that doing all the intitial 16 character story modes gets you enough for a Character and 1 story mode costume.
Sure, that's great. Once you are done with the initial 16 characters stories and some survival though, it's only 1 character releasing at a time, we don't even know if they'll have a character story mode or survival. Even if they do though, you're only gonna earn 1/16th the FM you earned in that big initial burst, because it's only 1 character at most per month from there on out. So, the FM earnings are gonna drop drastically, and it'll depend largely on how they do the Daily Challenges/etc earnings.
So it can easily become a huge uphill battle trying to earn Characters/costumes/stages through FM after that, and I don't think it's fair to ask anyone to be that trustworthy of a company like Capcom when it comes to the potential of ripping you off. You took $60 from me for a barebones beta, where most of the little barebones content that's currently here doesn't even function properly or at all.
GTFO with the "can we really judge them too harshly at launch?" So, this article creator wants us to just continue to bend over 'n take it in the @ss from greedy publishers like Capcom. F*ck outta here.
ille judge the f*ck out of them, especially online games that are content incomplete, "promising" future content updates, can I ask for a refund because they broke their "promise" ?
Editorials like this are one of the issues I have with certain "journalists." The concept is, at the very least, quite interesting. However, instead of really looking at the issue, discussing the ethical and morale aspects, talking about how the industry works and really looking at the issue, it's little more than "if the games not complete, lets give it the benefit of doubt," which is a terrible notion.
Going back to what I said, this is an important issue, because it isn't always fair. Street Fighter V has good mechanics, though its missing practically everything else. Splatoon was also a lot of fun, with lots of neat things, though there simply wasn't that much content there. And games like Super Mario Maker can really only get better with time, but I also feel like grading based off potential is extremely dangerous. A great example of this is Destiny.
When Destiny launched it was criticized for missing certain thing, lacking content and having serious issues. Some of these were corrected, though others (like a lot of social aspects) are still missing. Even though Destiny was light on content, it would be easy to assume there would be other events (because they did something for Halloween), Iron Banner/Queen's Wrath would continue to keep people busy and the two expansions would resolve the lack of content. However, objectively speaking, the reality is much different.
With the exception of the package we got for the holidays, there was just that one awkward event for Halloween for the full first year (we got a better event in Y2). Queen's Wrath, which is the only PVE event (besides challenges if you want to be semantic) in Destiny, happened a single time before it was decided to be a flop and then it was sort of forgotten over the months. Iron Banner managed to add something to PVP, though it was never anything more than a slightly different version of the base game with additional loot. And then you have the expansions.
Despite the high entry price, it's almost impossible to argue that The Dark Below added $20 worth of content. It was almost universally lampooned, viewed as overpriced and didn't do much to resolve the "content" problem. In fact, it was also criticized for making mistakes that didn't make sense (odds are you wouldn't need Eris' material service by the time you would unlock it, the amount of RNG/effort required to get the Necrochasm, etc). HoW did a better job at addressing concerns, but this was something like nine months after the games release.
Here in lies some of the issues. If you factor in the concept that things will improve, there is no guarantee that they ever will (there is a growing number of people who think TTK was a step backwards from HoW or at least is still far from perfect) and there is no telling their promises will ever pan out. Instead of pointing this out, talking about what is there and informing people of the potential in the future, it seems like some people, such as the author, just want to give publishes a pass.