jdreyer wrote on Jan 19, 2015, 02:38:

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 15:25:

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 14:18:
Think about this scenario-- what is to stop people from waiting till late night hours when not many people are online, and a large group coordinates to do airdrops and the next day when everyone is playing this group is all of a sudden armed to the teeth because they gave $$ to the devs and ended up with weapons/armor/whatever. It's just a super-shady system for this kind of game, and one that will require a bunch of stupid immersion-breaking rules to enforce so that this seems even remotely fair to players.

Good point. I also considered even though it would be more up for grabs, calling in a drop and being in the area is much better chance for everyone involved than a group of people somewhere else with no drop at all. It still is a arms race advantage.

Watching streams, I like the idea of zombie apoc survival, but a number of these games are really deathmatch games with a little zombie presence, many times a trivial presence.

Apparently, the server has to have a certain minimum population level before you can call in an airdrop to ensure a certain level of competitiveness. I think what you're talking about is still possible, but that might complicate it a bit.

Then groups will monitor player pops and coordinate when there's the bare minimum online, prettty easy way to protect your investment a bit

NewMaxx wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 20:18:

NKD wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 19:27:
Not speaking to anyone in particular here. Just in general. But yeah, if they want to gamble. Who really cares?

Well I played MWO for a while and (correct me if I'm wrong) you can spend real money on things like artillery strikes and whatnot that can technically be avoided. World of Tanks has stuff like golden ammo or whatever and technically that doesn't help much if you're a terrible shot or a terrible player tactically. I play a lot of Planetside 2 and most of my money is spent on side-grade weapons and aesthetics, the most valuable thing was probably an actual membership which sped up the grind. World of Tanks was similar...speeding up the grind is by far the best use of your money. A hell of a lot of F2P games let you spend money on keys and such that open lockboxes and that's entirely a gamble. I guess what I'm saying is, it's not a black and white question, there are many factors to consider and having the airdrop be a gamble makes for more interesting gameplay and thus a potentially good way to handle a lockbox-like system. I understand that this game is unique from the rest in some ways, too, yet another variable to consider.

All good points. I think my main worry with this game would be that if this is your funding model, few would do want to "waste" their money in this way, and the game would tank. Who wants to invest time (even if it's F2P) in a game that's shooting itself in the foot from the start, not to mention breaking promises (no P2W)? Also, the way they're describing it sounds rife for abuse and the creation of organized established elite groups that would gank any newbs.

I think that there's also built up frustration, as so many people see the potential in this subgenre, but there has yet to be a definitive game within it. Each game that has come out has had severe flaws and limitations.

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 15:25:

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 14:18:
Think about this scenario-- what is to stop people from waiting till late night hours when not many people are online, and a large group coordinates to do airdrops and the next day when everyone is playing this group is all of a sudden armed to the teeth because they gave $$ to the devs and ended up with weapons/armor/whatever. It's just a super-shady system for this kind of game, and one that will require a bunch of stupid immersion-breaking rules to enforce so that this seems even remotely fair to players.

Good point. I also considered even though it would be more up for grabs, calling in a drop and being in the area is much better chance for everyone involved than a group of people somewhere else with no drop at all. It still is a arms race advantage.

Watching streams, I like the idea of zombie apoc survival, but a number of these games are really deathmatch games with a little zombie presence, many times a trivial presence.

Apparently, the server has to have a certain minimum population level before you can call in an airdrop to ensure a certain level of competitiveness. I think what you're talking about is still possible, but that might complicate it a bit.

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 12:38:
But now it has created this new category. Pay to Have Fun, Pay for Conflict.

That's what we paid for when we BOUGHT the game.

It works well in GTA5, random. It is a blast. Everyone goes for them even though we all have millions of dollars. The battle that erupts is pretty funny.

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 15:25:

Good point. I also considered even though it would be more up for grabs, calling in a drop and being in the area is much better chance for everyone involved than a group of people somewhere else with no drop at all. It still is a arms race advantage.

Absolutely. Setting up a perimeter once you understand how the drops work would be a trivial task for a prepared group.

Also:

This Forbes article seems to hit the nail dead on.

I'm starting to really like the gaming columnists at Forbes! Who would have thought that they would become a more legitimate source of news and opinion than most 'gaming news' sites?

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 14:18:
Think about this scenario-- what is to stop people from waiting till late night hours when not many people are online, and a large group coordinates to do airdrops and the next day when everyone is playing this group is all of a sudden armed to the teeth because they gave $$ to the devs and ended up with weapons/armor/whatever. It's just a super-shady system for this kind of game, and one that will require a bunch of stupid immersion-breaking rules to enforce so that this seems even remotely fair to players.

Good point. I also considered even though it would be more up for grabs, calling in a drop and being in the area is much better chance for everyone involved than a group of people somewhere else with no drop at all. It still is a arms race advantage.

Watching streams, I like the idea of zombie apoc survival, but a number of these games are really deathmatch games with a little zombie presence, many times a trivial presence.

Creston wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 23:46:
So you pay actual money for other people to wind up with your shit? Well, we can't say games aren't getting more and more scummy about trying to milk every fucking dollar out of you.

Team Fortress 2 has been doing this for a while, charging for items that will "gift wrap" an item of yours and give it to someone on the server or randomly throughout the playerbase. I think the price was like $1-2. Charging to give your stuff away.. :-/

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 12:38:
Now the plane moves slower and the crate falls slower and it isn't nearly as accurate to fall at your feet. Now your $5 loot is at play amongst others equally. Agreed this isn't a lot less PTW than previously. But now it has created this new category. Pay to Have Fun, Pay for Conflict. We're just questioning what type of person would pay $5 for someone else to get your stuff.

Think about this scenario-- what is to stop people from waiting till late night hours when not many people are online, and a large group coordinates to do airdrops and the next day when everyone is playing this group is all of a sudden armed to the teeth because they gave $$ to the devs and ended up with weapons/armor/whatever. It's just a super-shady system for this kind of game, and one that will require a bunch of stupid immersion-breaking rules to enforce so that this seems even remotely fair to players.

This comment was edited on Jan 18, 2015, 14:23.

They can do all those things they outlined for aidrops without requiring players pay for them. It's really simple. Just make them random. But if they do that then players won't pay. Even if they keep them paid, players are likely to pay less if the chances of not getting to the airdrop if they make it "too contested".

Everything about this game from the low polygon count models and low polygon level geometry, the jerky animations, the terribly low res textures, the lack of good anti aliasing (look at all the jaggies in the sceenshots) scream that there was a small development budget. This is one of those games where the business model is keep the development budget low and make players pay for things. Or that's the impression that I get, which of course can be wrong.

I see the Battle Royale guys have a mode for H1Z1 already so I'll probably be buying this eventually. The engine looks a lot less glitchy compared to ARMA3 so that's good too.

Paranoid Jack wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 12:51:
I'm this > < close to purchasing just so I can see what all the angst is about. Hell, I purchased ArmA a second time on Steam just to try DayZ. So now after watching a few more videos I'm very close to pulling the trigger. I haven't played a first/third person zombie game in quite a while.

WTF, I'm going in...

Go find robbaz!

I'm this > < close to purchasing just so I can see what all the angst is about. Hell, I purchased ArmA a second time on Steam just to try DayZ. So now after watching a few more videos I'm very close to pulling the trigger. I haven't played a first/third person zombie game in quite a while.

WTF, I'm going in...

Paranoid Jack wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 12:11:
And we all can agree these things change (back to that early access thingy)? Lastly, the air drops are not mandatory and you will be given them in game on occasion from what I have read/heard. Sounds good to me so far. I don't read that as pay to win... seems a bit of a stretch.

This was a moving story, so we are caught up in that a bit.

You are correct, EA/Beta things can change.

It started out though... their original thought was you buy the drop and in this case it landed basically right on top of you. The plane was faster, the crate fell faster. So this was really pushing it being PTW. Pay $5 get goods, leg up on those just looking for goodies in the trash.

Then the first backlash and response from Smed occurs.

Change, EA/Beta, right?

Now the plane moves slower and the crate falls slower and it isn't nearly as accurate to fall at your feet. Now your $5 loot is at play amongst others equally. Agreed this isn't a lot less PTW than previously. But now it has created this new category. Pay to Have Fun, Pay for Conflict. We're just questioning what type of person would pay $5 for someone else to get your stuff. I guess a sugar daddy. Just strange that warrants the topic and the replies.

Thanks again to several of you guys/girls who gave me quite a few Sunday Morning chuckles. Hell, even a couple lols. It's been another long sixty plus hour work week here so just thought I would say thanks.

As far as the original topic goes... with a leaning toward reality... it is a FREE TO PLAY game. The only way these work is with micro transactions and/or advertisements. Simple, right? So Early Access = Not Finished/Still In Development. Free To Play = You Don't Have To Buy It upon release. And we all can agree these things change (back to that early access thingy)? Lastly, the air drops are not mandatory and you will be given them in game on occasion from what I have read/heard. Sounds good to me so far. I don't read that as pay to win... seems a bit of a stretch.

I understand that games are our passion here... the reason we visit this site, well most of us. Yet some tend to need a reason to vent. Understandable. I have far too much interaction with people during my day to day job. Some of you may not have enough. So you come here to release some of the toxins building up inside.

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Jan 18, 2015, 12:56.

So tired of companies and their BS, why don't they just say hey we wanteth the monies, thats why.

At least then they would be honest crooks.

Well...I think it is dumb, but if I play the game later on for free, cause, they said it will be, then I guess I wouldn't be totally upset if a group of my friends and I got to the package and wiped everyone out, cleaned their corpses for their loot AND got the phat loot crate.....cause there will be PLENTY of people to spend money for air drops. People buy ALL SORTS OF CRAP for the meta game. Look at Steam. there are people in the 300 levels of their account. You go through their list of games and they have played 1-2 hours on each of their 6,000 games!

So, big deal. I won't be spending money on drops, but hey, if I and my buddies benefit - fuggit.

jdreyer wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 01:21:
As opposed to Captain Harlock here who invents new forms of entertainment from whole cloth, because he is just that awesome.

Truly a god amongst hipsters.

harlock wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 22:10:

Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 21:21:

verybad1 wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 14:38:
So a PTW, Zombie, Early Access game ISN'T a new idea...!

Well gosh golly, I'da thought that would get everyone excited.

Seriously, WTF are there so many damned Zombie games? I don't mind a few sure, but it's effing ridiculous.

As opposed to high fantasy RPGs, MMORPGs, action games, etc, etc, etc.

As opposed to modern military shooters.

And why are there so damn many rock bands, anyway? I mean, who can listen to all those albums?

There are a lot of zombie games because people like zombies. It's not hard to understand.

because people are mindless sheep..

works for the other shit too

As opposed to Captain Harlock here who invents new forms of entertainment from whole cloth, because he is just that awesome.

Well it's Sony behind the wheel right?

More than likely the developers' hands are tied by contract and they can only nod in agreement with whatever crap the people paying the bills ask for.

I won't deny the scumminess of the move, but I can also understand if it wasn't their idea in the first place. Chances are, when you see something that makes no friggin' sense and there is a big publisher involved, the big publisher is the one behind it.